Not a conspiracy then
Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics
- Thread starter wizard of Tauranga
- Start date
NZWarriors.com
We obviously have differing views regarding privatisation on this forum
I’m personally quite comfortable with a fair amount of privatisation - whether it is flying AirNZ / banking / buying my groceries / getting electricity / some healthcare
We all benefit from privatisation in our daily lives. Just as we do from public ownership. Privatisation isn’t a dirty word.
We just differ where we are happy to draw the line. I’m fairly comfortable with inviting in overseas ownership if it means we get improved infrastructure and quality of living
We can’t hang on to every asset that the public owns forever, as it means capital is tied up in legacy projects, at the expense of new projects
I’m personally quite comfortable with a fair amount of privatisation - whether it is flying AirNZ / banking / buying my groceries / getting electricity / some healthcare
We all benefit from privatisation in our daily lives. Just as we do from public ownership. Privatisation isn’t a dirty word.
We just differ where we are happy to draw the line. I’m fairly comfortable with inviting in overseas ownership if it means we get improved infrastructure and quality of living
We can’t hang on to every asset that the public owns forever, as it means capital is tied up in legacy projects, at the expense of new projects
Well, we've been living it for the last 45 years. This part: "if it means we get improved infrastructure and quality of living" - given the complaints on here looks like that's definitely failed.
NZWarriors.com
According to this there was a net increase of homes build under Labour, just think that's worth point out. https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/labour-delivers-12000-more-public-homesWhat pisses me off is how the opposition will use the same speech as the previous opposition... just the names are changed.
John Key went into the 2008 Election saying how the anti-asset sales Labour government sold houses.
Go forward to the 2017 Election and Labour were pointing to the number of houses nation sold during the housing crisis. Yet, KO sold over $80,000,000 worth of houses under Ardern and Hipkins until the last election.
And now, Labour are pointing out that Luxon is selling of assets (state houses) when he said there wouldn't be any asset sales.
The simple fact is that a lot of the time, no matter who is the government, state houses reach the end of their economic life when it becomes too expensive to maintain them or upgrade them to the latest standards, or the houses are sold/donated to Iwi or social housing providers, or the land is considered too valuable for KO to develop.
The simple fact is, "no asset sales" is an extremely open ended phrase and the meaning of it changes depending on who is talking about it. But, it's "poli speak".... Luxon says the government will not sell assets this term but over 20 state houses have already been sold. If the old interislander ferries were about to be replaced next week, it could be said the government has "sold assets" when the old ferries were either sold to another ferry operator or sold for scrap. Old machinery or computer systems or over ordered product is "sold" could be counted as "selling assets". It all depends on how a person defines an asset sale.
And, when this current government's turn is over, as sure as night follows day, the Nats or ACT or NZF will accuse the new Labour led government which campaigned against asset sells of breaking an election promise because of the sale of some asset.
Oh, and before I get accused of defending the current government, or being a neo-lib, or living in an echo chamber.... if I go back far enough, I'll find where I had this same discussion with inruin or someone else about whether the Labour government was breaking an election promise selling houses when it said there wouldn't be any "asset sales".
Same play (asset sales), same script (sound bites for the media) just the actors (polis) have reversed their roles... and we, the audience, are left to decide whether or not selling houses constitutes an asset sale... and our interpretation will most likely be led by our political leanings.
EDIT: I should copy and paste this post and link into a word doc so, when the actors reverse their roles and the government changes, it would save me re-typing this as an answer to one of the right wing brigade here.
In the context of the right, of neoliberals, of the Act party and of National - it's sell anything and everything that's not nailed down, allowing huge profits and wealth extraction to go offshore, for very little gain for anyone remaining in this country.
And it's not National's, or Act's place to be selling off (or giving away) anything.
Exactly.
NZWarriors.com
The conservative press deliberately have no memory:
www.stuff.co.nz
Richard Prebble - what a dick. Neoliberalism is zombie economics
www.nzherald.co.nz
Stuff
www.stuff.co.nz
Richard Prebble - what a dick. Neoliberalism is zombie economics
Richard Prebble on asset sales: How privatisation can be a success story
OPINION: The Government does not need to run businesses.
so you think we should sell assets?
Well, here's the next piece of shittiness from this far right neoliberal government.
Treaty Principles Bill Submissions: Heartfelt and Crafty
And Chris Finlayson says to David Seymour: "Be careful what you wish for"
mountaintui.substack.com
NZWarriors.com
Privatise and entrench private property rights over the public good.
Criminalise dissent.
Privatise public space and assets.
Of the rich, by the rich, for the rich.
Criminalise dissent.
Privatise public space and assets.
Of the rich, by the rich, for the rich.
Sounds like you are saying Vote for NZFirstThe conservative press deliberately have no memory:
Stuff
Richard Prebble - what a dick. Neoliberalism is zombie economics
Richard Prebble on asset sales: How privatisation can be a success story
OPINION: The Government does not need to run businesses.
Winston Peters said he had fought against sales in the past, and was right to have done so.
“I’ve spent my whole career ensuring that our assets stay in our possession,” he said.
- Thread starter
- #14,372
The conspiracy emerges again despite Luxon saying it ain’t happening…
No privatisation is happening this term. I regard this as straight up spreading misinformation from you now
NZWarriors.com
Anyone here flown AirNZ before?
How was your experience before and after the govt sold shares in 1989 and 2013?
Did you fall out of the sky?
How was your experience before and after the govt sold shares in 1989 and 2013?
Did you fall out of the sky?
Nope. Wrong again Wiz, but I accept your apology.The conspiracy emerges again despite Luxon saying it ain’t happening…
No privatisation is happening this term. I regard this as straight up spreading misinformation from you now
And how much profit went offshore?
NZWarriors.com
- Thread starter
- #14,376
Govt still owns half all those companies anyway so we have the best of both worlds:
Labour voters still keep 50% public ownership (representing their approx voter base); right voters get the benefits of private ownership through their 50%.
Ultimate democracy in action really. Ownership representitive of the electorate. I can’t see why anyone would complain…
Do you think Hobson's Pledge can get 10% signatures to trigger a citizen's initiated referendum on the TPB by the next election, and would that referendum be binding?Well, here's the next piece of shittiness from this far right neoliberal government.
Treaty Principles Bill Submissions: Heartfelt and Crafty
And Chris Finlayson says to David Seymour: "Be careful what you wish for"
You have to rebalance investments every now and then. I’m actually quite happy for the govt to sell non-core assets to invest in core infrastructure
NZWarriors.com
Given the power of disinformation and the heavyweight organisations on the right behind National and Act, Hobson's pledge may not but something might.
