Saturday, March 2, 2013

ON ABUSE OF PROCESS AND THINGS

Now that the Supreme Court has put to rest the challenge to the partial sale of Mighty River Power and others by the nobody Maori Council and an increasingly dysfunctional Tanui Iwi led by their Clown King with Tuku pulling the strings, it remains only for me to write my cheque and line up with what a expect to see a long line of Kiwi investors wanting first crack at the share float.  

What's left?    A petition, organised and funded, in the main, by the Green Party using public monies, calling for a CIR into a decision of the National Party which it foreshadowed and campaigned on in an election which it won convincingly.    The referendum, if it takes place, will be a Clayton's referendum into a done deal.    It is estimated to cost in the order of $9m and so anyone who just misses out on a hip operation can rightly say f**k you Greens (and their Labour lackeys) for your abuse of process.

People have already voted on this issue in the best referendum of all.  The proposed CIR is a charade by political parties fighting long lost wars and wedded to locking our kids and grandkids into an ever increasing mountain of public debt.   They oppose each and every attempt to reduce Government expenditure while, at the same time, keep proposing new programmes without a thought to where the money is coming from apart from increasing taxation for 'Rich Pricks' defined to edit out their own voter demographic.

Heaven forbid that they should ever get their grubby hands on the levers of power again.    The good news is that recent opinion polls say they won't.

18 comments:

Judge Holden said...

You're a wee bit scared of the result of any referendum on this aren't you? I would be too given that these sales are about removing assets from the hands of ordinary people, and then handing any proceeds over to the wealthy chums of the National Party (irrigation scheme anyone?).

The Veteran said...

Not scared at all. Your mob had the chance and lost. The referendum, if it is to take place, will be a verdict by sore losers on a done deal.

The words of your Michael Cullen spring to mind "We won, you lost, eat that".

I certainly am not wealthy but I relish the chance to buy into a good deal and I suspect in a year or so time when we look at the Parliamentary Register of Pecuniary Interests a number of your mob will show up as not being able to resist the chance.

Meanwhile your mobs grand plan is to borrow more money from China after you dump on middle NZL with reversing the tax cuts ... talk about dishing our economic sovereignty.

Judge Holden said...

"The referendum, if it is to take place, will be a verdict by sore losers on a done deal."

If by sore losers you mean voters, then yes. Your arrogance is revealing.

There are millions of New Zealanders who cant buy in and who won't benefit from any proceeds because they're not annointed by the Nats. Conning the many in order to govern for the few is a key tory principle though, so none of this is a surprise.

Paranormal said...

Drudge you really are an idiot.

The asset sales are to pay down debt created by spending on the masses. They've already eaten their cake but you still want them to have it.

pdm said...

Vet - a good post which is right on the money.

JH - even if the referendum comes out at 25% in favour of the Mixed Ownership Model and 75% Against it will still be a waste of money. The mandate was given at the last election and the process will proceed as it should.

Once again the Left squander funds which could be better applied for the benefit of all New Zealanders.

Anonymous said...

I stuck a Solar One water heating system up before Christmas and electricity supply has been switched off to the 360 lit cylinder since then. Its a 40 watt pump and the sun keeping me and family in hot showers. Thank goodness for the nice summer.

If you really want to fight back reduce use. Then who owns it all matters a whole lot less.

Independence is a wonderful thing and payback time is not all that matters in life.

JH, The poor don't need you, you need them.

3:16

Judge Holden said...

"The asset sales are to pay down debt created by spending on the masses."

bzzzzzt wrong. The so-called Future Investment Fund is designed to deliver the proceeds of the sales to the Nats' mates, not reduce debt.

"The mandate was given at the last election and the process will proceed as it should."

bzzzzzt wrong. If a referendum on this specific issue comes out against it, wave bye-bye to your "mandate", the Nats won't have one.

pdm said...

JH said `bzzzzzt wrong. If a referendum on this specific issue comes out against it, wave bye-bye to your "mandate", the Nats won't have one.'

Wrong JH - the mandate from the General Election still applies. Remember the referenda to:

* reduce number of MP's.
* repeal smacking legislation.

Both were overwhelmingly, in favour - in excess of 90% for as I recall - yet nothing changed.

You are pushing shit up hill with a rake - give it up and give us a break..

Anonymous said...

So will you promise to fuck off for good if any such referendum proves you wrong?

When National is in opposition, can we count on you being fully supportive of their using public money to arrange petitions against Labour or Green policy?

"Heaven forbid that they should ever get their grubby hands on the levers of power again."

I've always felt that the only reason the Greens are even still on the political landscape is that have never really had their hands on the levers of power, Labour has always had to water any of it down to make it palatable.

If any of the crazy shit they spout ever actually got put into practice, if any of it had to actually stand up to real scrutiny, the whole sad house of cards would fall over with hilarious speed and they'd all be back in their communes licking their wounds well before their first term was half over.

Judge Holden said...

"the mandate from the General Election still applies."

Bzzzzt, wrong again! A referendum on the specific issue would negate any so called "mandate" you guys are so enamoured with. Pretty straightforward, and why you so hate the idea of the people getting a say.

James Stephenson said...

"A referendum on the specific issue would negate any so called "mandate" you guys are so enamoured with."

Think again. There might be a political risk in ignoring the result of the Greens-initiated referendum but the desperation of lefties on this subject tells me one thing very clearly: You know damn well that it will fail to win you the next election as it failed to win you the last one.

Judge Holden said...

The desperation is quite obviously from the right. Look at how you're all screeching about how appalling it is that there might actually be an opportunity for the people to have their say on this. The Nats acknowledge they will lose their mandate if there's a referendum, that's why they're frantically trying to get the sales down before the vote. There's $$ to be made after all.

Anonymous said...

Okay Judge, let's be consistent. How about a binding referendum on whether the poofs get to play house?
]
George

Noel said...

I notice that originally the reasoning for the mixed ownership was that enable these SOE's to access more funds for expansion.
But more recently the share sales have been turned into a need to fund schools,hospitals prisons.
Now what was the reason for the establishment of SOE's all those years ago. Oh that's right to return a profit to the Government.

Judge Holden said...

"How about a binding referendum on whether the poofs get to play house?"

Yep, fine. Go get the signatures and force one, loser. No? Too busy being an unemployable old fucktard? Not as if you don't have time on your hands now is it?

The Veteran said...

Judge ... $9m borrowed from China to fund a Clayton's referendum on a done deal ... that's what's wrong and sadly you must be as thick as batshit not to understand.

Citizens Initiated Referanda means just that. It's not meant to be a Party political initiative paid for out of the public purse by a bunch of whinging losers and tosers.

And that's what you are ...end of story.


Noel said...

The Veteran said
"anyone who just misses out on a hip operation.,..."

I don't believe anyone misses out on a hip operation if its viable.

I had a total replacement last November.

I had to waive my medical insurance after cancer caused my leaving the workforce 5 years before retirement age so the only option was public.

Expected waiting list was 6 months.
Got it in five. If I could have afforded private insurance would have had it in two conducted by the same surgeon and probably at the same hospital.

Anonymous said...

Noel said
"Oh that's right to return a profit to the Government."

No! Correct term is a return of profit to the taxpayer.

Now to be changed to "a return of profit to the shareholders."