Clayton Cosgrove vs Bill English

Right wing confusion over NZ Power

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

Investors in Mighty River Power should send the champagne next week to Russel Norman, Green Party, Parliament Buildings, Wellington.

The stock looked a good buy even before he talked the Labour Party into threatening price control on electricity. It looks an even better one now.

What a confusing statement. Roughan is basically saying that the Labour and Greens policy announcement concerning NZ Power has caused the share price of Mighty River Power to drop, but is then saying that's a good thing for people buying shares because they will be cheaper. He then says it's a bad thing:

Brokers and fund managers expect the bids from institutions to be at the bottom or even below the range the Government considers fair value. Taxpayers should send the Greens' financial larrikin something else - a bill.

Brian Gaynor has estimated the likely cost to the public purse at $400 million.

Leaving aside the fact that National said they wouldn't partially privatise unless they got a fair price, where on earth has Gaynor pulled that $400 million figure out from? The actual estimated reduction to the government's books is $60 to $90 million, which is easily reimbursed to taxpayers through cheaper power prices.

Roughan then claims there is no real risk from the policy announcement:

When the stock starts trading on the New Zealand and Australian exchanges, probably on Friday, we could begin to see the "significant upside", as they say. But it might take a little longer for the price to rise, as it will when those who were too nervous to subscribe this week reassess the political risk.

The right wing hack is basically arguing that there will be no long-term adverse effect from the NZ Power announcement on the value of shares, and they will significantly increase in value making investment worthwhile.

That doesn't just contradict what most other right wing propagandist's have been claiming for week's on end, it makes their argument against NZ Power largely ineffectual. Will NZ Power cause the stock market to crash or not?

Roughan's argument, like most other deluded right wingers, is entirely based on a what if scenario, which basically amounts to making financial investment decisions on par with fortune telling.

Let's see what else Roughan's crystal ball gazing foretells:

Before the electricity market could be replaced with a state-controlled pricing regime, two things would need to happen. Labour and the Greens would need to win the next election, and if they did they would need to carry out this policy. Neither, I think, is likely.

Claiming that Labour and the Greens won't form the next government is all a bit premature... But claiming that they won't implement their policy to lower the cost of electricity if elected is down right insane! This is a policy both parties will campaign on, and the public will therefore expect it to be undertaken if Labour and the Greens win the next general election.

But what's perhaps even more delusional is why Roughan thinks National is a certain shoe-in:

John Key remains the most widely admired of any New Zealand Prime Minister I have seen. National continues to lead all polls by a margin that is remarkable five years into the life of a government.

Unless something disastrous happens, he looks certain to win again next year.

A mighty big claim 18 months out from the next general election, especially considering what the polling trend is showing. Here's the latest Roy Morgan:

Although National has substantially increased their vote, the low support for governing Coalition partners the Maori Party, ACT NZ and United Future mean a combined Labour/ Greens/ New Zealand First coalition remains a good chance of forming Government after the next New Zealand Election — due late next year.

Despite that statistical analysis showing National would lose, the ignorant propagandist believes:

Democracies, though, have an uncanny habit of getting the governments they want, and we don't seem to like coalitions at all, let alone coalitions of second and third. We have consistently punished smaller partners and let the leading party govern alone for all practical purposes.

National certainly aren't governing alone, and require the help of John Banks, Peter Dunne and/or the Maori party to pass legislation. We actually have a coalition government at the moment elected by 24% of New Zealanders.

That fact doesn't just make John Roughan look a little bit confused it makes him appear to be entirely mental! As Gary Morgan highlights, it's the declining support for National's coalition partners that could be the decider, and with things not looking good for them, John Key being reelected is not a certainty.

All Roughan's article really does is stroke the egos of those rich enough to invest in Mighty River Power, who are likely to support National anyway, while trying to blame the opposition for any possible issue the share offer faces.

Similarly, Fran O'Sullivan's article also dismisses NZ Power without justification. For instance, she completely fails to acknowledge the reason behind the policy in the first place, which is to reduce the extensive energy poverty in New Zealand so that people can heat their homes properly.

But if that ignorance of the key issue here wasn't bad enough, O'Sullivan seems to believe that Labour and the Greens somehow owe those who have caused such inequality in the first place an explanation and say in their socially conscious policy:

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.

Whoever O'Sullivan's "key players" are, they certainly don't have the best interests of the public at heart if they're against such considerate and moderate policy.

NZ Power is definitely not a "precedent" by any stretch of the imagination, and similar regulators are pretty normal in many other successful democracies around the world. By all accounts such systems work well to ensure consumers are supplied with affordable electricity.

O'Sullivan, like all the other National propagandists, is ignoring that fact like the plague. It also doesn't seem to matter to them that the policy behind NZ Power was proposed by the Ministry of Economic Development in their Review of the New Zealand Electricity Market (PDF) way back in 2006.

That well researched document looked at alternative models to benefit New Zealand, with a single buyer model being the result.

If you want to know just how much bullshit the right wing has been spreading about NZ Power, I suggest you read what the actual research is showing along with the Greens discussion paper (PDF) on the matter.

Another issue the right wing is ignoring is that most of our trading partners have recently gone back into recession, meaning there will be less foreign investment to ensure the government gets a fair price. Despite this glaringly obvious problem, O'Sullivan lays all the blame for the Mighty River Power share offer potentially failing on the opposition:

There's been plenty of back-of-the envelope estimates suggesting the Government could lose out on at least $400 million and possibly a much higher amount if the MRP float bombs and the shares don't reach the predicted price band. Other estimations - including that relayed by the business lobbies - suggest $1.4 billion could be wiped off the value of private power companies and a similar amount from the taxpayer-owned companies which will go on the block.

Next week, it will be apparent to what extent the Opposition's proposed intervention has affected values.

Things like the increased productivity from having a healthier population because NZ Power will allow for people to heat their homes properly is obviously of no concern to O'Sullivan. Nor is it a problem for these elitists that New Zealand is now the second most expensive developed country in the world to live in. They only care about the profits to be made from selling our assets, which will be of no benefit to the majority of Kiwi families.

In many respects the right wing doesn't share in the values that have made this country great. They seem to regard fairness and equality as principles that don't apply when it benefits their bank accounts. That lack of sympathy or social conscience clearly displays a complete disconnect between the right wing's spin doctors and your average Kiwi family, who's cost of living has increased while wages and opportunities for work continue to decline under a National coalition government.

The degree of the current governments failure to make people's lives better will decide the next election, not the rampant and baseless ranting's from right wing hacks like Roughan and O'Sullivan who wouldn't know the truth if it bit them on the ass!

A good price?

Yesterday, there were a number of successful protests around the country against Nationals asset sales. Well done to all those who attended.

In my opinion, these protests shouldn't be required. This is because National should have already put a halt to their privatisation plans, not just because of the referendum, but because the government can no longer hope to attain a good price.

In June last year, the Minister for State Owned Enterprises Tony Ryall said:

Let me be quite clear here. If the government doesn’t get a good price, the government isn’t going to sell.

So will the government still get a good price after Labour and the Greens announced policy that will regulate the electricity market to ensure consumers aren't being ripped off? If you read some of the right wings reaction to NZ Power, you'd think that the economy was about to crash.

However NZ Power will only cause a potential 3 to 4.5% reduction in the value of dividends going to private shareholders from the five main power companies, and that's before you even factor in increased revenue. In 2012, they made nearly $10 billion, which is an increase of 18.6% on the previous year. That means there will be very little adverse affect on these hugely profitable companies.

It appears that National is simply blaming Labour and the Greens for their own financial mismanagement, because the price they hoped to attain was never good in the first place.

Despite National saying they wanted Kiwi mum and dad investors to buy shares, getting a good price is entirely dependent on large amounts of foreign investment. In fact with the profit margins already tight, National moved to increase foreign investment by doubling the commission on Mighty River Power shares sold to foreigners. They did this because so-called mum and dad investors in New Zealand don't actually have a lot of money to invest, all thanks to neoliberalism in the first place.

Clearly attaining enough foreign investment to make the float worthwhile is entirely dependent on how well foreign economies are performing. However most of our main trading partners have gone back into recession this year, meaning that there will be reduced investment. The success of the asset sales was dependent on these markets not declining. They have, therefore Nationals asset sales will not be financially successful.

That's the main reason why National should bite the bullet and put a halt to their asset sales... They can no longer hope to get a good price. Now is the best time for them to back down, because they can effectively spin the blame onto Labour and the Greens while claiming to be listening to public opinion. Over time the effectiveness of their propaganda against NZ Power will diminish and in my opinion, National should take this opportunity while it's available.

If they don’t accept that the asset sales agenda is a financial failure, National risks taking all the fallout for mismanaging the partial privatisation into a financial mess... Their business backers won't be pleased, especially when Labour and the Greens clean up in 2014 with most of the asset sales agenda still sitting in the to do box.

HALT: Asset Sales Protest. Auckland, NZ.

Bob wants higher power prices

It wasn't that long ago when New Zealand was one of the best places in the world to live, irrespective of a person's financial wealth. In fact financial wealth wasn't the be all and end all that it is now, with citizens enjoying full employment, a functioning state housing and welfare system amongst other socially beneficial provisions brought about by democracy.

How things have changed. Now we have high unemployment, low wages and expensive electricity so that many people on fixed incomes cannot afford to heat their homes properly in winter. We see the result of such energy poverty with increased hospitalisation and lower productivity, both of which cost the country dearly.

But the free-marketeer, let's call him Bob, doesn't care about any of that... Bob doesn't give a damn if a few thousand poor people each year become sick from cold damp housing because they cannot afford to pay for electricity. As long as Bob can make a few bucks from investing in power companies that had turnover of around $10 billion last year, Bob will be a happy little capitalist.

There's no doubt that increasing revenue from electricity sales comes at public and economic expense and that Kiwi households and businesses have been hit hard by a largely unregulated marketplace. No matter what the actual cost to generate electricity, the current system is designed to extract exorbitant amounts of money, and with the bulk of our electricity being generated at 1 cent per KWh from hydro dams that were built and paid for many years ago, most Kiwis understand that we're being ripped off big time.

Bob doesn't see it like that though... He thinks the rich having more money to invest balances out increased commodity prices and struggling businesses because of expensive electricity. It doesn't matter to Bob that he didn't invest in anything productive after the last round of tax cuts for the wealthy, and that's why New Zealands economy continues to stagnate. Bob doesn't seem to realise that investing in non-productive areas will detrimentally affect the economy, and therefore his long-term profit margins.

To justify the status quo of high power prices, the proponents of asset sales say that profits from that huge revenue stream are low, which averaged only 4.8% last year for the five main power companies. However that seemingly low return is because, along with top management being overly compensated and increased debt levels, National has demanded huge investment in the sector to build up infrastructure just before it's partially privatised. They're presently spending large amounts of public money to effectively increase future profits, 49% of which would then go to Bob under Nationals mixed ownership model.

There's no doubt that investors yield will increase faster with unchecked increases to your monthly bill, which is why people like Bob hate the concept of NZ Power so much. However the effect will be nominal, being that the policy only targets 7% of the $10 billion revenue stream, which grew by an average 18.6% last year.

Luckily, Bob and his neoliberal mates are in a very small minority group, with the majority of business owners and middle class workers wanting cheaper power prices. These people are more likely to vote for parties that actively work towards the social and economic benefits cheaper power prices (PDF) will bring, which will cause increased support for the Labour and Green's at the next election... Roll on November 2014.

Protest against asset sales

Lopsided journalism

There's recently been some talk about the media being biased towards the left, with well known propagandist Karl du Fresne writing in the Nelson Mail:

So what might the new RNZ chief executive do to enhance the organisation’s standing in a political climate that is less than favourable? One obvious step is to take a tougher line against the editorial bias that still permeates some RNZ programmes.

The topic of Karl du Fresne's article's were covered by The Nation, here's the video:

Karl du Fresne's idiotic scribbling’s have also been well countered by Chris Trotter, who writes:

Not for him the healthy contest of ideas or the testing questioning of a critical intelligence. No. To Mr du Fresne, Kim Hill, Chris Laidlaw, Jeremy Rose and (Lord spare us!) Kathryn Ryan, are voices without legitimacy: wilful heretics who dare to challenge the majesty of neoliberal thought.

The question is whether such testing so to speak is justified? Consider how woeful the National government is performing to reduce things like childhood poverty for instance, and there's your answer. But to undermine that justified line of questioning we have claims by polemicists that public broadcasting organisations tend to be left leaning, and things therefore need to change to favour the right.

It's a tactic oft employed by the devious, to attack their opponents on something they're doing themselves. Who to believe when the left says right-wing journalists are being biased and vice versa... Well look no further than this weekends Q+A, in which Susan Wood interviews Labour leader David Shearer:

DAVID When you sell a state-owned asset like Mighty River Power you forego the income that that brings in.

SUSAN I understand that.

DAVID So what you're effectively doing- It's like selling your business, putting an extension on your house - you feel much better for that, but you lose the income from the sale.

SUSAN OK, but they [National] are getting the books back into surplus. They are getting their house in order.

Shows how much Wood knows about the state of the nation and the loss of revenue from selling our most profitable assets.

It should also be highlighted that National and Treasury have failed to meet all of their previous predictions concerning surpluses since National came to power, so why does Wood think their latest imaginings are going to be accurate?

To any reasonable journalist the highest rate of government borrowing we've ever seen coupled with substantial underemployment shouldn't be considered "getting their house in order". Only a true "believer" in neoliberal ideology would spout such inanities with the certainty Susan Wood does.

But the bit that really shows Susan's true colours is when she says:

SUSAN And it's his right. It is his right to select whoever he wants for that job.

Wrong! There's an appointment process that if properly followed wouldn't allow anybody to simply be shoulder tapped for such a high level position. That process includes a call for nominees and ensuring that they have the skills required before any shortlist is presented for consideration. In all cases the most qualified and most skilled person should be chosen... With the GCSB appointment, that clearly hasn't been the case.

But after such a monumental cognitive fail by Susan Wood, she then goes on the attack about David Shearer's brain fade concerning him only recently putting an overseas bank account on the Registrar of Pecuniary Interests.

SUSAN Didn't you lose your right for privacy around it when you forgot to declare it? When you broke the rules and did not declare it?

DAVID No, I absolutely did not. I said that I made an error. I myself came forward and corrected that error. I took it on the chin and said 'here it is'. And I expect that to be the standard by which all politicians operate if they do make a mistake.

SUSAN That's what John Key did this week. He said he'd made a mistake and he fessed up. Exactly the same scenario.

Clearly Susan Wood hasn't kept abreast of what has occurred... John Key is obviously friends with Ian Fletcher and that's why he was chosen to be the boss of the GCSB. We have seen that friendship displayed in numerous ways but most prominently by the GCSB protecting Key from the fallout surrounding the illegal spying on Kim Dotcom, which National has tried to cover up.

It's highly unlikely that the Prime Minister simply forgot that he'd called up his mate about the job, dismissed the other candidates in favour of Ian Fletcher or that they'd recently met on three separate occasions, which means he's once again misled the House of Representatives with his evasive answers to straight forward questions. There's no comparison to be made, because Shearer hasn't misled the House.

To think that John Key appointing his mate Ian Fletcher to be the head of the GCSB isn't a case of outright cronyism is quite frankly delusional! To then try and justify that improper appointment because of Shearers' bran fade is somewhat pathetic!

What this all really shows is that like the majority of journalists in New Zealand, Susan Wood is entirely biased towards the right. This is often the case because their funding depends on governmental decisions and as National has shown on many occasions, they're not averse to closing down media outlets that don't tow the party line. However journalists are also sometimes biased because they're appointed as a result of the exact cronyism Wood is trying (and failing) to defend.

The only positive thing about that Q+A interview is despite Susan Wood being highly disrespectful, argumentative and at times downright acidic towards David Shearer, he did pretty well to counter her right wing delusions! But really, why should he have to while John Key and his cronies are given a free ride by our mainstream media?

Solid Energy tip of the iceberg?

As I'm sure you'll agree, the financial meltdown at Solid Energy makes it no longer worth trying to partially privatise... High levels of debt will ensure that returns are considerably reduced, meaning that "mum and dad investors" are unlikely to buy shares and any price achieved will be low.

Today, NewsTalk ZB reported:

So that mountain of money the Beehive was counting on to pay for things like hospitals and schools is shrinking about as fast as the prospect of the promised surplus by 2015. At least they won't have to confront that until after the election, providing they're still around by then of course!

Solid Energy and the government are currently in crisis talks with banks about its $389 million debt, a debt that looks set to hit us taxpayers in the pocket. The main problem is that Solid Energy's liabilities ballooned by more than 133% from $320 in 2008 to $748 in 2012, while the price of coal fell sharply.

But what about our other state owned enterprises... How well is National managing them? The following figures show net debt, total liabilities or total borrowings from 2008 to 2012 for our major public companies:

Meridian Energy: 940 million - 1.6 billion (Net Debt) +70%
Mighty River Power: $625 million - 1.1 billion (Net Debt) +76%
Genesis Energy: $550 million - $1 billion (Borrowings) +82%
NZ Post: $295 million - $608 million (Borrowings) +106%
Transpower: $1.1 billion - $2.3 billion (Net Debt) +109%
Kiwirail: $256 million - $576 million (Liabilities) +125%
Solid Energy: $320 million - $748 million (Liabilities) +133%.

Although not to the same extent as Solid Energy, it's pretty clear that many SOE's are now overexposed and therefore at considerable risk of fluctuations in exchange rates. That overexposure has increased markedly since National came to power, and is a direct result of them instructing SOE's to borrow more while ignoring official advice.

There's no doubt that National has mismanaged Solid Energy by instructing them to increase their debt levels at a time when coal prices were in sharp decline... The red flags were clearly visible and any competent government should have acted more decisively to ensure the company remained financially viable without the need for an extensive publicly funded bailout.

What exactly National has used all those billions of dollars in additional borrowing for isn't clear, because as far as I can tell there's been no major increase in infrastructure investment that such huge amounts of borrowing should enable. In fact there's been a marked reduction in funding for many sectors of society.

Surely they haven't spent it all on golden handshakes?

Tony Ryall misleads Parliament

Today, Tony Ryall misled the House of Representatives by claiming that coal prices were high when National requested the board of Solid Energy increased debt to ensure more dividends were paid to the government. He also claimed that coal prices were the highest ever between 2009 and 2011 and the collapse happened after they requested that increase in debt, which is an outright lie!

Here's one of the video:

The Minister for State Owned Enterprises made those false statements because National was coming under considerable fire for making that stupid request to the board of Solid Energy to increase debt, which ballooned from $13 million in 2009 to $313 million in 2012, at the worst possible time.

Ryall is echoing a misleading statement made by Solid Energy's management to the Commerce Committee, when a financial review (PDF) of Solid Energy was conducted in 2010/11. Here's what the Commerce Committee was told:

Dr Don Elder is the chief executive and John Palmer is the chairman of the board.

Financial performance 

In 2010/11 Solid Energy generated total revenue of $828.662 million and recorded a net after-tax profit of $87.2 million, an increase of almost $20 million on its 2009/10 result.  

Future revenue 

We noted that Solid Energy projected $1 trillion in potential earnings from a predicted 10 billion tonnes of coal. Solid Energy said this estimate represented the potential revenue from all coal-based products, such as fertiliser, and that it might prove to be conservative. We asked what coal price it used in this calculation. We noted that predicted returns assumed that the current price of fossil fuels would be maintained or increase. Solid Energy said returns were calculated on prices from the last several years; it believed they were very unlikely to fall, and were very likely to rise substantially.

However international coal prices were clearly not indicating that Solid Energy should increase its debt levels when National requested them to on 28 May 2009.

Here's a graphic that shows coal prices had fallen dramatically just before Bill English made his request for increased dividend returns from Solid Energy by increasing debt.

Click image to enlarge

National wasting time and money

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

Labour leader David Shearer won't rule out supporting Winston Peters' policy of buying back Mighty River Power shares at cost if they form the next Government.

Mr Peters said he would be happy for a Government of which he was a part to borrow or to use the superannuation fund to buy back shares at no more than cost.

I think that's the right position to take, being that it won't be until a Labour led coalition government get their hands on the books that there will be a clear indication about whether a buy-back is achievable.

Acting Prime Minister Bill English told Parliament the 290,000 people who had pre-registered for the float of Mighty River Power over a week compared favourably with the numbers who signed the petition "achieved in a year with paid parliamentary staff bailing up school children".

I find it somewhat concerning that Bill English is dismissing the signatures of young people, being that anyone of any age can sign and petition the House of Representatives. Is he ageist?

Despite what the idiotic Minister of Finance seems to believe, there is no age limit, and being that it's young people who will be most affected by the sales, their opinions should matter just as much as anybody else's, if not more so.

National has spent a million dollars on unnecessary advertising for the Mighty River Power float, which makes them total hypocrites! In fact they plan to spend over $106.3 million of taxpayers money on selling assets the majority of the public don't want sold.

National is trying to compare apples with oranges here, when we're still awaiting the outcome of the all-important referendum... Only that can give a clear answer concerning a mandate to sell our most profitable assets.

In the mean time any sales are simply wasting more time and money, which is about the only things National seems good at doing.

Thank you for standing up against asset sales

By the Green Party of Aotearoa NZ.

National to ignore referendum

Today, Stuff reported:

The Government has vowed to proceed with asset sales irrespective of whether a referendum on the process comes out against the issue.

I would expect around 70 per cent of public voting in that referendum will want to keep our assets, meaning that 70 per cent of the voting public will feel let down if their wishes are ignored by National.

That's 70 per cent of the voting public who are more likely to vote for a political party that respects their opinions, and not one that would dismiss them outright without any proper justification for doing so.

Finance Minister Bill English said it would make no difference to the process.

"The sales are going ahead," English told TV3's Firstline. "We've already launched the Mighty River Power float and there will be others.

"This is an issue that was campaigned on right through election year, we laid out the policy in detail, the opposition parties had a year to debate it, and they didn't win the election so we're proceeding with the sales on the basis of that mandate."

The election was held on various different issues and didn't give National any clear mandate to sell off our most profitable state owned assets.

I shouldn't even need to reiterate that a referendum on the issue is the only way to find out if the government has a mandate to pursue their plans for partial privatisation or not... Without it, National simply don't have a mandate.

In my opinion, ignoring what the public wants in that referendum will be a one way ticket out of office, and gaining the publics trust again will take a very long time indeed.

Citizen A with Dr Wayne Hope & Selwyn Manning

Kick Don Elder off the payroll

Yesterday, the NZ Herald reported:

Labour's state owned enterprise spokesman Clayton Cosgrove believed Dr Elder was paid out $1.5m in addition to his annual salary of $1.3m.

Mr Ford confirmed Dr Elder was "working from home" in a consultancy capacity and was receiving full pay. He is due to finish with the company on April 1.

Receiving full pay as a consultant working from home? FFS! In these hard economic times where public services are being cut left right and centre, that's entirely unacceptable.

It appears that Elder is being paid to do sweet fuck all when he should be made to front up and answer for his part in the failure of Solid Energy.

When asked how much the entitlements were, he [current Solid Energy chairman Mark Ford] said: "If Dr Elder was happy for us to report his salary, I am more than happy to disclose what it is".

Mr Ford said a confidentiality agreement in Dr Elder's employment contract had prevented a disclosure of his entitlements.

Now hang on a minute... Elder is receiving an extensive amount of public money... The public therefore have a legal right to know exactly how much he's being paid and his contract cannot impede the law as it is written.

Clearly divulging such information wouldn't damage the economy, prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand or the international relations of the Government, meaning it's allowable under the law set out in the Official Information Act 1982 (PDF).

It was unclear if Opposition calls for a subpoena, forcing Dr Elder to appear, would have the support of government MPs, which it needs for it to be carried forward.

Obviously they won't want anymore light being shone on the issue, mainly because it was their incompetence just as much as the companies management that caused the publicly owned enterprise to go down the drain.

Nationals incompetence is so egregious that it looks like they might have failed on purpose in order to devalue the asset just before privatisation.

History has shown that such a tactic has been used to get public assets transferred into their greedy money grubbing hands and perhaps Elder is complicit in such a crime? That would explain why he's still on the payroll.

National's share offer already in trouble

Today, 3 News reported:

Serious questions are being asked about how a sharebroking firm managed to obtain the details of a woman who'd just registered her interest in buying Mighty River Power shares.

The woman, who wants only to be known as Elizabeth, registered on the 0800 number, and within 15 minutes received an email from Milestone Financial Services, asking to represent her.

RadioLIVE business editor Andrew Patterson says alarm bells should be ringing about how the company obtained the investor's details so it could go fishing for a commission.

Oh dear! The government website and 0800 number to gain the details of people who are interested in obtaining shares in Mighty River Power have only just launched, and already we're seeing a serious breach of privacy.

Passing on the details of those who register to a private company is not only morally questionable, it's against the law, with the Crimes Act 1961 (PDF) stating:

105A Corrupt use of official information

Every official is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who, whether within New Zealand or elsewhere, corruptly uses or discloses any information, acquired by him in his official capacity, to obtain, directly or indirectly, an advantage or a pecuniary gain for himself or any other person.

Unfortunately the State-Owned Enterprises Minister, Tony Ryall, will likely not be held to account for the crime... After all, history has shown that no National minister is responsible for the unscrupulous actions of their ministry.

Key should lose popularity contest

There's this conundrum that's been bugging me for a while now, John Keys popularity. It often seems as though I'm the only one who can see that the Prime Minister isn't wearing any clothes, and despite the disturbing spectacle, sometimes nobody else is saying anything at all about the horrid visage of a naked Teflon John.

"John's got no clothes on" I often declare, hoping against all hope that the public will at least notice the problem of his naked ambition... But alas, sometimes my fellow left wing bloggers are the only ones to see through the nature of Keys false persona, with the mainstream media invariably ignoring some glaringly obvious inadequacies in favour of promoting Keys right wing spin.

Last Friday, the One News Culmar Brunton Poll reported that John Keys' popularity as preferred Prime Minister increased 5 points to 44 per cent... Making me scratch my head in bewilderment and wonder how on earth such a cretin could get so much support. Surely 44 per cent of those who responded to the polling question couldn't possibly believe that John Key is doing a good job of running the country?

There are so many examples where this is clearly not the case that I would need to write a book to be able to reference them all... But in the mean time, here are a few examples of why 44 per cent of the public shouldn't prefer the smiling assassin as Prime Minister of New Zealand...

A huge increase in unemployment, more Kiwis immigrating out of New Zealand than ever before, more than a three fold increase in prices compared to incomes since 2008, credit rating downgrades, an increasing wage gap with Australia, 0.1% annual economic growth, the fastest increase in inequality in any developed country, more children living in poverty, the biggest leaks of private information by any government departments ever seen, the mismanagement of the now worthless Solid Energy, privately owned companies purchasing changes to government legislation, insulting sports superstars, lying about his investments, misleading the house of representatives on numerous occasions, Novopay, GCSB breaking the law and spying on New Zealand citizens under Keys watch, a 200% increase in government debt since 2008, 17,000 manufacturing jobs lost during 2012, Hekia Parata, lying about the Hobbit union boycott, undermining our 100% Pure branding, failing to rebuilding Christchurch plus a plethora of other brain farts that clearly show the current Prime Minister is at best incompetent.

So with all that and much much more, why is Teflon John still so popular?

There appears to be a few potential answers to that question: Firstly, that there are a high percentage of morons in New Zealand that will simply support the incumbent leader no matter what he or she does... They might even be sadists who enjoy being lied to and a good round of beneficiary bashing once in a while? Secondly, that the polling is entirely biased in favour of the right wing and doesn't properly reflect the publics opinion. Thirdly that the opposition is not offering up a potential leader in the form of David Shearer and lastly that Key is popular because the sun is shinning.

Being that too much sunshine is just as bad as having a biased media skewing polling results, having lots of deluded people thinking Key is the best thing since sliced bread isn't very beneficial for the country when he's obviously mismanaging it so badly. Likewise the fact that more people aren't seeing Shearer as potential Prime Minister material isn't a good thing, and unfortunately none of these reasons for Keys ongoing popularity in the polls fills me with any kind of hope for a brighter future here in New Zealand.

Perhaps I should join the mass exodus to Australia as well? After all, 52,000 Kiwis per year can't be wrong.

Hitler plans to buy shares in Mighty River Power

Slater is pathetic

The ever-deceitful Cameron Slater has been posting like a madman in an attempt to discredit the 'Say No To Asset Sales' campaign.

It's a bit pathetic really, especially because Slater is so blindly opposed to keeping our power companies in public hands that he's willing to promote total lies, which for anybody who's familiar with Slater's propaganda should come as no surprise.

Today, WhaleOil reported:

This was the scene last night as the Green taliban [sic] and Labour conducted an anti-asset sales rally in Frank Kitts park:

Slater has also used a photo of around a hundred people who attended an Against Domestic Violence rally at the same location in an attempt to show that nobody cares about keeping our assets.

However his post's are entirely non-factual, and the turnout to the anti-asset sales rally at Frank Kitts park was respectable at around a thousand participants... Here's the proof:

There's already been well over 370,000 stop the asset sales signatures collected (over 11% of eligible voters), which easily meets the amount required for the petition to trigger a referendum on the issue.

With over half of those who voted for National at the last election also not wanting asset sales, a referendum will assuredly mean that New Zealand retains its most profitable and socially beneficial assets for future generations.

In my opinion, National would be pretty damn stupid not to allow a referendum to go ahead... But not half as stupid as Slater's pathetic attempts to mislead the public. That guy is a total plonker!

Join the sign-a-thin or download the petition here.

Say no to asset sales in Aotearoa NZ

New Zealand's lost dividends from asset sales

		Sale proceeds and dividends of Former SOEs ($ million)
			BNZ	Telecom	Contact Energy	Total
		Sale revenue	850	4250	2331	7431
		Year	Foregone Dividends
		1987	30			30
		1988	60			60
		1989	25			25
		1990	39	198		237
		1991	56	200		256
		1992	92	307		399
		1993	15	366		381
		1994	170	500		670
		1995	298	597		895
		1996	279	727		1,006
		1997	270	831		1,101
		1998	120	859		979
		1999	250	1,137	95	1,482
		2000	240	906	103	1,249
		2001	160	303	31	494
		2002	310	425	110	845
		2003	295	430	121	846
		2004	323	490	199	1,012
		2005	235	835	92	1,162
		2006	335	1,184	115	1,634
		2007	430	739	150	1,319
		2008	703	762	162	1,627
		2009	252	495	162	909
		2010	620	453	165	1,238
		2011	395	345	153	893
		Total	6,001	13,089	1,657	20,747
Inflation-adjusted sale proceeds and dividends of Former SOEs (2011$ million)
			BNZ	Telecom	Contact Energy	Total
		Sale revenue	1585	6733	3225	11542
CPI		Year	Foregone Dividends
621		1987	56			56
650		1988	107			107
697		1989	41			41
731		1990	61	314		375
738		1991	87	314		401
748		1992	142	475		618
758		1993	23	559		582
780		1994	252	742		995
802		1995	430	862		1292
823		1996	393	1023		1415
830		1997	377	1159		1536
833		1998	167	1194		1361
837		1999	346	1573	132	2051
870		2000	319	1206	136	1662
886		2001	209	396	41	646
910		2002	394	541	139	1075
924		2003	370	539	151	1060
949		2004	394	598	243	1235
979		2005	278	988	109	1375
1005		2006	386	1364	133	1883
1037		2007	480	825	167	1473
1072		2008	759	823	174	1757
1093		2009	267	524	171	963
1137		2010	631	461	168	1261
1158		2011	395	345	153	893
		Total	7366	16826	1919	26112
Impact on debt (assuming 6% cumulative interest on government debt) nominal millions.
			BNZ	Telecom	Contact Energy	Total
Sale revenue			-3441	-14448	-4690	-22580
Foregone dividends			12999	32423	2715	48137
Net increase in debt			9558	17975	-1976	25557

H/T Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand