I find it slightly amusing when right wing reporters try to cobble together an article from a bunch of disjointed National propaganda that has already been widely discredited.
Deborah Coddington's article in today's Herald on Sunday shows that she really hasn't been keeping up to date with the asset sales debate, and simply rolls out a bunch of tired old spin lines:
So apparently everybody who opposes the Pengxin bid for the Crafar farms is a racist! As somebody who opposes foreign ownership of New Zealand land and is not racist, I find her manipulative statement insulting.
Being that Pengxin group is a huge mining conglomerate and China is hungry for mineral resources, they can in fact dig up our land and ship it offshore. It just takes a signature from an all too agreeable minister. It's likely that's exactly what the Chinese government backed bid was planning all along.
Coddington doesn't let such detail get in the way of her rant though, even questioning why politicians should listen to their electorates:
The priceless wisdom of a neoliberal hack, all secure in her property ownership. Why should politicians listen to the people who vote for them she asks? I'm pretty sure that in a democracy politicians are meant to represent the people. What country does she live in I wonder?
Why should the wealthy care if up and coming generations can afford to purchase property or not? Because having a vested interest in your community creates social cohesion, which means more Kiwi's will stay in New Zealand instead of flying the coop. Only a very foolish capitalist completely blinded by greed doesn't care about the community they live in.
Coddington says property owners have sweated blood, but most property speculators haven't lifted a goddamn finger. They've sat back and waited for foreign investors to push up the price of their assets to the detriment of productive investments and the ability of future generations to own their homes. Coddington doesn't seem to give a damn that Kiwi's are becoming tenants in our own country.
Wrong Coddington. One was a general election held on a number of issues, while a referendum is based on a question about one decision. We also know that around 35% of National voters don't support asset sales and the vast majority of New Zealander's don't want them either. If we include all eligible voters, only 21% gave John Keys party their vote. That's hardly a mandate to partly sell off our best earning SOE's.
Only a referendum will truly resolve the question of whether National has a mandate or not.
Coddington might not be aware that there was very little debate in the MSM concerning MOM asset sales prior to the election and an all important fact was deceitfully hidden by National. There are no savings to be had in relation to the interest on debt paid versus the revenue streams lost. There simply is no financial benefit for New Zealand with asset sales.
A video of John Key has also emerged where he says there's no good reason to sell such profitable assets. In my opinion, National doesn't have a mandate when the public has been lied to... besides, why should people buy shares in something they already own?
How does Coddington manage to pigeonhole around 70% of the population in such a way? Her snide remarks that the people who do not want asset sales are all poor while the academic consensus is that there is no benefit to New Zealand is beyond belief. It's as dumb as calling patriotism racism. Incredibly her disingenuous waffling gets worse:
Coddington hasn't provided any figures; she's regurgitated some rhetorical vomit that is the worst pro asset sales pitch I've seen so far. Her article is an atrocious and badly researched piece of claptrap that should never have seen the light of day. Remind me not to bother reading the Herald on Sunday while Coddington is a contributor.
Deborah Coddington's article in today's Herald on Sunday shows that she really hasn't been keeping up to date with the asset sales debate, and simply rolls out a bunch of tired old spin lines:
It is difficult to escape the fact this backlash is anti-Asian sentiment by New Zealanders. It's not as if foreign owners can dig up the land and ship it offshore.
So apparently everybody who opposes the Pengxin bid for the Crafar farms is a racist! As somebody who opposes foreign ownership of New Zealand land and is not racist, I find her manipulative statement insulting.Being that Pengxin group is a huge mining conglomerate and China is hungry for mineral resources, they can in fact dig up our land and ship it offshore. It just takes a signature from an all too agreeable minister. It's likely that's exactly what the Chinese government backed bid was planning all along.
Coddington doesn't let such detail get in the way of her rant though, even questioning why politicians should listen to their electorates:
Why should a bunch of politicians, swayed by the emotional rhetoric of the electorate, dictate what we should accept for our property after we've sweated blood improving its value?
The priceless wisdom of a neoliberal hack, all secure in her property ownership. Why should politicians listen to the people who vote for them she asks? I'm pretty sure that in a democracy politicians are meant to represent the people. What country does she live in I wonder?
Why should the wealthy care if up and coming generations can afford to purchase property or not? Because having a vested interest in your community creates social cohesion, which means more Kiwi's will stay in New Zealand instead of flying the coop. Only a very foolish capitalist completely blinded by greed doesn't care about the community they live in.
Coddington says property owners have sweated blood, but most property speculators haven't lifted a goddamn finger. They've sat back and waited for foreign investors to push up the price of their assets to the detriment of productive investments and the ability of future generations to own their homes. Coddington doesn't seem to give a damn that Kiwi's are becoming tenants in our own country.
But the same Chicken Littles want to have a referendum over the 49 per cent share float in four energy companies - Mighty River Power, Meridian, Genesis, and Solid Energy. I might have missed something, but I thought we just had one in November.
Wrong Coddington. One was a general election held on a number of issues, while a referendum is based on a question about one decision. We also know that around 35% of National voters don't support asset sales and the vast majority of New Zealander's don't want them either. If we include all eligible voters, only 21% gave John Keys party their vote. That's hardly a mandate to partly sell off our best earning SOE's.
Only a referendum will truly resolve the question of whether National has a mandate or not.
Coddington might not be aware that there was very little debate in the MSM concerning MOM asset sales prior to the election and an all important fact was deceitfully hidden by National. There are no savings to be had in relation to the interest on debt paid versus the revenue streams lost. There simply is no financial benefit for New Zealand with asset sales.
A video of John Key has also emerged where he says there's no good reason to sell such profitable assets. In my opinion, National doesn't have a mandate when the public has been lied to... besides, why should people buy shares in something they already own?
I take it these people have never sold their houses, still drive the first car they bought, shun Trade Me as sinful, and have containers full of stuff stored in parks around the city.
How does Coddington manage to pigeonhole around 70% of the population in such a way? Her snide remarks that the people who do not want asset sales are all poor while the academic consensus is that there is no benefit to New Zealand is beyond belief. It's as dumb as calling patriotism racism. Incredibly her disingenuous waffling gets worse:
I bet if you quizzed Kiwis, most wouldn't know which energy companies are SOEs and which are privately owned anyway, so personally I'd privatise the lot, especially on those figures.
Coddington hasn't provided any figures; she's regurgitated some rhetorical vomit that is the worst pro asset sales pitch I've seen so far. Her article is an atrocious and badly researched piece of claptrap that should never have seen the light of day. Remind me not to bother reading the Herald on Sunday while Coddington is a contributor.
