Posts by Paul Williams
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Maybe National could clear all this up and explain that we're all confused, and do this by saying: here, explained in detail, is what our policies actually are.
Apparently, this is too much to ask!
-
Kina might be the one that really finishes Dr Smith off though , as I understand that his family dynasty , like the Bill English family, has a history of beef protein rather than kai moana.
Indeed, many years ago (1991 I think) Lockwood spent an evening regaling student politicians about his bovine expertise (and sculling expertise too); he was very good humoured (his idiot press secretary however was a drunken buffoon).
-
I must remember to read more George Bernard Shaw, that is a wonderful quote. I shall use it carefully.
-
Craig said:
Well, Paul, perhaps they're actually taking it a little more seriously than your satirical take. Or not.
I only wish you'd done the satire. Time will tell but in this instance, I'm inclined to invoke comparisons with Henny Penny. Perhaps had they not persisted with the idiotic pretense of email hackers earlier, they'd be more credible now?
-
Oh good god. Lay. Complaint. Or. STFU.
You can just imagine the complaint
Dear Mr Police,
I'm not happy 'cause Bill said I'm not so bright to some people who've told the media and I don't know who they are and Bill's not telling me.
And he said we'd do what Labour did but when I said I want to lead a Labour government and he said I can't. Crosby too, he said I can't. But then Crosby said we should do what they do so maybe that's ok?
Plus then Lockwood said we do some different things too, different from what I'd said. And that's also been in the media and I still don't know who they are that told.
The only thing I do know, is that apparently they were the same people who broke into Diane Foreman's place and stole our emails but then you lot said there's no evidence of that? WTF.
Look, either way, I think you should look into this and if you can't find the blokes who keep telling the truth about us, can you find out something Crosby or Bill or Lockwood did that might be worth some prison time?
-
The emphasis on infrastructure is hard to dislike, but that doesn't make him a Keynesian.
Sure but it's a great play on words though... and there's ring of truth, borrow and spend out of recession. I guess the issue is at what point in the economic cycle you splurge compared with when you're a parismonious bastard?
I'd still like to know how roads will increase our trade intensity; if we don't have a debt problem, we sure as hell have a trade problem and I'm not yet sure how re-tarmacing SH1 is going to fix that?
-
Rich, I'm far from expert but have followed the CTT and other PPPs closely in Australia and particularly in NSW.
Macquarie Bank has been the big mover and 'innovator' here and has recently encountered serious expert and media criticism about the structure of the deals which rely on cheap credit and which are jepoardised by the subprime crisis. This quote (from an April SMH story) sums it up:
In the most detailed independent research of Macquarie Group and Babcock satellites to be published, Risk Metrics critiques the financially-engineered infrastructure model for its high debt levels, high fees, paying distributions out of capital rather than cashflow, overpaying for assets, related-party transactions, booking profits from revaluations, poor disclosure, myriad conflicts of interest, auditor conflicts and other poor corporate governance.
The full report is available here.
My understanding, limited though it is, is that Key's guaranteed return heightens the risk that they'll require paying "distributions out of capital" or the kind of "related-party transactions" that the CCT had (road closures etc) and why would a government borrow in the present market anyway?
In simple terms, what I think Key needs to do is firstly explain how precisely the debt-financed infrastructure will boost sustainable productivity and then explain how the approach will avoid the risks experience in Australia and abroad?
I don't want to sound cynical, but given the tendency for National's campaign to borrow policy from Australia, rely on strategy advice from Australia and the plans to sell ACC to Australian firms, it's hard not to wonder what next?
-
Craig wrote:
I know that it's not a perfect analogy, but as a citizen and a taxpayer, I think I've at least as much of a legitimate interest in the expenditure of public money as I'd have in the doings of a company I own shares in.
Indeed Craig. And I'm pleased that at least we know in advance that Key's plan is to guarantee a specific rate of return. I don't agree with it at all, but at least this part of the policy is clear.
And, I hope you note that I've not addressed your rhetorical point about NSW btw, I've certainly tried hard not too because I'd (!)hate(!) to disagree.
-
But while the CCT is, in my view and not having followed it in great detail, a textbook example of how NOT to run a PPP, it doesn't immediately follow that PPPs are a bad idea.
Agreed, but the CCT fails on a number of simple tests and is only saved by the fact that it didn't create a public risk when it fell over.
Key's policy may fail all the tests and it's critical that we know before the election.
-
So that's two of us, both from the UK, both with direct experience of PPP's, both saying 'don't do it'.
I'd not go that far myself. I think there's a couple of issues mixed up here, there's questions about what on earth Key means by giving the private sector a bigger role (and clearly he's said privatising ACC) and I'm guessing it means PPPs for infrastructure projects - I'd welcome a clarification. But secondly, there's issues about whether PPPs are a good idea or not?
On this second point, my limited experience and knowledge of PPPs for infrastructure is that they're a very mixed bag. There's a fair number of examples in Australia, though so not many in NSW, where PPPs have been successful but there's a few recurring problems which need consideration.
1. All the contractual terms should be on public record - not the case with the Cross City Tunnel (CCT) in Sydney.
2. They shouldn't be used to reduce competition i.e. not changing roading and public transport to "encourage" drivers to use the CCT.
3. The final issue relates to who's carrying the risk - Russell noted up thread that National's plan "offer a guaranteed return from the projects they fund", this means, under National's plan, that the public is. If there's one upside of the CCT project failure it's that at least the State government didn't inherit the risk.
Key needs to provide more details so that we can assess the merits of the policy and the specific approach only then can we make a determination on the merits of the policy. My concern is that his experience, and the ideology of the party, is the dominating influence and that any PPPs will expose the public balance sheet and/or reduce competition to ensure a private sector return.