One of my favourite moments of the 2005 election campaign was the first leaders debate when Helen Clark discovered that she knew more about National’s state assets sales policy than Don Brash. Don tried to tell us at the time that ” it was just a few farms”, the ‘worm’ turned, and asset sales were back on the political agenda.
National has avoided much in the way of policy lately, but it seems Bill English wants to throw a few more things on the fire (sale). English is talking about ‘partial sales’, though that appears to be up to 50%. He says that National does not have list, but then talks about electricity companies. It is all very murky indeed.
The sale of state assets is a throw back to the 80s and 90s where the size of government seemed to be all that mattered, and finding a quick buck deemed vital to the survival of the government. The SOEs we still have represent assets built up by generations, they are returning dividends, and like all assets are there with an eye to protecting future generations. Keeping them is a no brainer.
So what gives here? Two things leap out. Firstly the shallowness of National’s commitment to keeping the family silver. The pretence that this is just a partial selldown is laid bare by English on Agenda
Well if the nation says we want to retain control of these state assets then we can’t expect to be a government and say we’re going to go and head off in the opposite direction, I think National has accepted that, as we’ve accepted with other policies that this is where the public is.
Poll driven fruitcake anyone? Nothing has changed in terms of how English or National view state assets. Bill is trying to see how much he can get away with.
Which leads to the second outcome of Bill’s musings. English claimed his comments would not cause a backlash, but judging by the huge number of negative comments on the Herald’s site, public opinion seems still to be very strong on this, and it is a matter that will sway people’s votes. There is no doubt this is great news for Labour. Clayton Cosgrove has all guns blazing and the PM can see the obvious links to funding for tax cuts.
No doubt the Nats will now retreat, and little or nothing will be heard on this proposal again. But rest assured come the first leaders debate in 2008, Helen Clark will have the Agenda transcript in her folder, and all eyes will be on the worm.
Fruitcake indeed!
There appears to be no strategy here. I think, when you look at the example of David Cameron’s run in recent months, the National Party here has not taken those lessons on board.
Their poll-influenced arrogance, I’m certain, has allowed them to believe that they can throw out policy like this as if it doesn’t matter. Well, what we know is, it does.
Bill English’s SOE policy mutterings have smacks of Maxy B. Bradford assured the country that the market would take care of it, it sure did, for itself. Fundamentals in the market place, supply and demand and when companies control the market share as they would in New Zealand, there can be no alternative for the consumer than to take price rises on the chin.
Ryall expects the public to go back four months, trawl through a dry speech to find a four line reference to competition signalling the removal of the cap. To his credit, he claims Mea Culpa but in the end, it showed the true colour of their poll-driven arrogance again.
And while I’m at it, yes Doctors have applied for review under the fees review system, all 64 of them and 53 were approved. Well, shock horror.
Privatisation has never been good in an economy this size and we all know that. Not good either is born-to-rule Tory arrogance that they can continue to get away with their casual flippency on the things that matter to New Zealanders.
Watch the worm! Funny thing is, the worm can bite too!