Entry 827, on 2008-08-05 at 22:00:11 (Rating 3, Politics)
Can we trust our politicians to do what they told us they would do and to do what is really best for the country? No. Thank you, that is the end of this blog entry.
Not really, I want to explore this idea a bit more, especially in relation to the latest political storm here in New Zealand relating to the possible sale of assets if/when the National party wins the next election. They won't commit to anything beyond their first term in power (3 years) which is fair enough, but are they planning on asset sales after that? After the latest revelations that seems like it might be true.
Why would anyone sell Kiwibank? It has been a real success, both in its own right by attracting customers (they are currently gaining 2000 per week) and by keeping the other banks (almost all of which are owned overseas) a bit more honest regarding their services and fees.
I can only imagine 3 reasons anyone would want to sell this useful, government owned asset: first, they have ideological reasons for doing so, even though logic shows that they shouldn't; second, they have some special relationship with the other banks who might be pressuring them in some way to sell off Kiwibank; and third, they are just unbelievably stupid. Of course, there is no reason to believe the strategists in the National party would be limited to just one of these vices, its certainly possible that all three apply.
Don't think I am specifically targeting National here as being untrustworthy. I'm not very impressed with Labour's performance recently and I wouldn't trust many of the smaller parties much either. Actually, I should correct that because the smaller parties are more trustworthy if only because you know where you are with them. For example, you can virtually guarantee that Act would follow a crazy right wing philosophy and you know they would sell off assets. I would never vote for them but at least I know what they stand for. You can't be so sure of the more centrist parties like National and Labour.
So I don't offer any any voting advice here, just to be aware of what is going on behind the scenes and to look at the good and bad in all the parties. And remember that tactical voting is part of the fun of an MMP system!
You should have just stopped after the second sentence! (No)
Comment 2 by SBFL on 2008-08-27 at 22:45:45:
Yes, but maybe selling assets is best for the country? I have perfectly good banking services with ANZ...what value does Kiwibank add for any taxpayer who is not a customer?
OJB said "It has been a real success, both in its own right by attracting customers (they are currently gaining 2000 per week)" ... that's your measure of success? I hope the "business experts" in our govt that run Kiwibank have a bit more nous.
Comment 3 by OJB on 2008-08-28 at 19:37:40:
I'm sure there are some people who will always think selling assets is best for the country, no matter what the facts are. And there will be others who believe the opposite. I think there is sufficient evidence to show that selling assets hasn't worked as well as we were told: Telecom, Air New Zealand, railways, etc. None of these were a raging success!
I have read opinion from both sides of the political spectrum praising Kiwibank. It has forced the overseas banks to curtail their monopolistic tendencies so it has helped people like us who use other banks for various reasons.
I think gaining customers is a mark of success. Would this not be a significant factor in most businesses? I know there are other factors to consider such as financial returns (where Kiwibank has also done quite well) but this is surely an important one.
Comment 4 by SBFL on 2008-08-29 at 20:43:39:
Yeah, fair points. Some of those already sold assets may not have been 'raging successes' but I am not sure what the expectations were. Nonetheless most were better off being sold anyway, even if the rhetoric of the politicians of the time wasn't matched.
As you know I am not so far right that I think the govt should sell all SOE's. I think that there are strategic assets that the govt should retain at least controlling ownership of, though my definition of 'strategic' probably doesn't align with Cullen's non-definition.
On Kiwibank, well I'd have to see it's EBITDA performance to see if it's worth keeping. I don't think it was set up to curtail the monopolistic tendencies of the overseas-owned banks as you put it(isn't that what the Commerce Commision would be for?) but more as an alternative for "the average Kiwi" whatever that means. I can't recall Jim Anderton's rhetoric at the time. Anyway I'll acknowledge it's not a loser like NZ Rail is going to be again.
Comment 5 by OJB on 2008-08-30 at 10:27:40:
I think many people are deeply suspicious of asset sales now (and rightly so) and any party contemplating them (like National) would be best to keep the idea fairly quiet (which they didn't). There may be situations where asset sales have been an obvious success but I can't think of any right now.
You think Kiwirail will be a failure? Let's give it a chance and see. The government buy back of Air NZ seems to have saved it form the incompetence of private ownership. Maybe the same can happen for rail. With rising fuel prices rail should be a viable option, don't you think?
Comment 6 by SBFL on 2008-08-30 at 21:11:05:
It's unfair to state private ownership as incompetent. I think the successes outweigh the failures. The same can't be said for state ownership on non-core SOE's. It is well documented that the govt overpaid for KiwiRail. Rail could be more viable, but not because of the price of diesel, but it needs more routes. Accessibility is it's problem.
Comment 7 by OJB on 2008-08-30 at 23:11:26:
I think the previous owners of Air NZ did make some serious mistakes. It seems to me that calling them incompetent isn't going too far. Its widely accepted that the previous operators of the railways definitely made some stupid mistakes too.
Its true the government paid too much for railways. They should have waited and made things awkward for the old owners, then offered a reasonable price. Is that unfair? Just as unfair as running our asset into the ground then asking too much for it.
Comment 8 by SBFL on 2008-08-30 at 23:35:30:
Yes, probably but I recall the airline industry worldwide was in trouble following 9/11 so I am sure that was a contributing factor. And also lets not assume all private ownership is incompetent....only government ministers who pay too much for an asset for the sake of scoring a few political points. And remember that came from our hard earned taxes OJB, now in Aussie - ouch!
Comment 9 by OJB on 2008-08-30 at 23:53:49:
I didn't say all private ownership is incompetent, only the management of Air NZ at the time. It also seems that management of railways wasn't too good. And don't get me started on Telecom!
I don't think the government bought railways to score political points. I think they genuinely thought it was a good idea. I think they spent away too much but the actual purchase was the right thing to do.
Comment 10 by SBFL on 2008-08-31 at 10:23:18:
How naive!!
Comment 11 by SBFL on 2008-08-31 at 16:03:17:
The accusations from the left that National have a secret agenda has now been nullified with the admission from Helen Clark that she knew all about the $100K Owen Glen donation to Winston in February. Yet she preferred to turn a blind eye for the sake of staying in power. Now it has come back to haunt her and any further accusation from Labour on secret agendas would be hypocrisy of the highest order.
And furthermore, as Whaleoil points out on his blog, Labour have yet to release any 2008 policies, while National have released 21 already. It is clear that National are now the party of transparency and integrity.
I don't see what the Winston Peters thing has to do with secret agendas. They are totally different subjects. There is evidence for a secret National agenda. It doesn't matter what the policy says, that's why its called secret! I think we can assume Labour policy will be pretty much more of the same, although it is slack they don't have the policies for this year on their web site.
Comment 13 by OJB on 2008-08-31 at 17:08:05:
Regarding your theory that buying railways is political point scoring. Who do you think they would be scoring points with in this case?
Comment 14 by SBFL on 2008-09-01 at 00:42:30:
As I said, Helen Clark has been keeping a pretty big secret of her own.
And of course while you may think there is a secret agenda by National we know there has been a secret agenda by Labour. It's no longer secret of course as they have rammed through their social engineering agenda in non-election years past. I certainly wouldn't think it safe to assume it's more of the same OJB - they have had their fair share of surprises for the electorate.
As for the railways question - well people just like you OJB, idealogues who think politicians should be running businesses they know nothing about as long as it gives you that feel-good factor.
Comment 15 by OJB on 2008-09-01 at 09:03:44:
I really don't see that the two are equivalent. One is an alleged indiscretion affecting only one minor party (which is part of the government, I agree). The other is a secret (or it was secret) plan to sell off our assets and return to the failed policies of the past.
I can't think of anything this government has done which should be much of a surprise given their obvious political affiliations. What were you thinking of in this case?
Can you tell me which politicians are running businesses? Apart from Jim Bolger, of course, who is an ex (National ) politician and seems to be doing a pretty good job!
Comment 16 by SBFL on 2008-09-01 at 21:11:40:
First para: Pretty loaded and inaccurate final sentence. I think the term "secret" gives hint to the equivalency, seems Helen is the "slippery" one now. She has deceived the nation.
Second para: What an apologist!!!!!!!!...and upholder of double-standards. By that definition ("given their obvious political affiliations.") you have just excused National from any future 'secret' plans of selling assets. I mean, what would you expect from them?? Come on, this is verging on party hack speak!
Third para: The term refers to SOE's obviously. And before you go into a repsonse about them having no involvement in day to day affairs (in case you were thinking to), remember that the CEO reports to the Minister, and Boards (govt appointed) make the most important decisions on the direction of the business.
Comment 17 by OJB on 2008-09-02 at 10:27:43:
The fact is that National want to make themselves look more centrist because that's what they need to do to win the election. They have hidden the fact that underneath they still want to sell assets and do all that other new-right, conservative economics stuff. Therefore the long term plan to swing back to the right and sell assets was a secret.
Labour do things based on their expected values. National are trying to disguise that and make themselves look like they will do something different. That's the difference. And you avoided the question and didn't tell me what you were referring to.
I know that the SOEs report to the minister but that is quite different from politicians running the company. I think the SOE model is a good compromise (although I think its a bit screwed up in the case of TVNZ).
Comment 18 by SBFL on 2008-09-02 at 20:52:06:
I did not avoid your question (man I am getting sick and tired of you unfairly accusing me of avoiding your questions (incl other posts obviously) - is this your way of looking like you are 'winning' the debate? How childish and desperate!). You seem to have avoided reading my earlier comment from which your question came form. In comment 14 I clearly state the social-engineering agenda. Do you not know what this means?
Your excuse for Labour putting through legislation that they did not campaign on (aka "secret agenda") speaks for itself.
You're splitting hairs on the SOE's.
Comment 19 by OJB on 2008-09-03 at 10:08:13:
OK, sorry about that accusation, which wasn't correct in this case. Reading back I see you were talking about broad philosophies, not policies. But a social engineering agenda shouldn't really be a surprise to anyone because all parties have these. More specifically are you talking about the anti-smacking, emissions trading, and that sort of thing?
Comment 20 by SBFL on 2008-09-18 at 19:03:29:
Appreciate the recant, you got me irked earlier for sure.
No, no I was talking about policies (philosophies in action?). Yes social-engineering being anti-smacking, civil unions, smokefree bars, prostitution reform, amongst others no doubt. I really don't recall Labour campaigning on these issues, but I do recall seeing many letters to the editor complaining about how Labour's intentions were only revealed after they were voted in. Perhaps you can provide an election manifesto or previous policy document that at least indicates they were thinking about making the changes they did with those new laws? (In case you mention it, I am aware anti-smacking was initiated by the Green Party)
Comment 21 by OJB on 2008-09-18 at 21:56:54:
So you see all of those things as being social engineering. It seems to me that just about everything a government does in the area of social policy (which is surely a reasonable part of a government's job) might be social engineering.
I would have to look back through Labour's policy statements before the last election to know whether they were mentioned or not. At least they are within the philosophy of what we would expect from them. Also, as you point out, labour is only one part (admittedly the biggest part) of the government.
Comment 22 by SBFL on 2008-09-19 at 20:09:18:
It's generally accepted as being such by the general population.
Nothing like the extent of the current govt.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE