I mean, I see Maiki Sherman over at TVNZ liked it last night. She called it a 'solid first hit' on telly, but I think everyone else seems to have seen through what Chippy's trying to do here.
Let me quote you some.
Tom Pullar-Strecker at The Post: Labour's Future Fund hits the buzzwords, but the rationale is hard to follow.
Pattrick Smellie at BusinessDesk: This suggests either that Labour is economically illiterate or that its target audience is presumed to be.
Radio New Zealand: The distinct lack of detail has left Labour somewhat exposed, evoking echoes of other ambitious projects that fizzled like KiwiBuild or the Green Investment Fund.
Jenée Tibshraeny at the Herald says this is actually less about making New Zealand wealthy and really more about having a crack at National and possible asset sales at the next election.
Henry Cooke at The Post: Labour's Future Fund promises everything and nothing. It's hard to know what to really make of this.
And then from Patrick Smellie again, because his piece is just so eviscerating: Labour will have to do a whole lot better than this.
Now, basically, what you could take from that is that no one serious is convinced by it - because Labour has taken a great idea, which is Singapore's Temasek, and then taken away all the things that make Temasek successful.
Temasek sells assets, this lot is not allowed.
Temasek invests overseas, this lot is not allowed.
That's just a couple of the problems here. Honestly, the list of problems in this policy announcement is so long, we could do an entire show about it.
I suspect Labour knows and I think they know it's a bad idea. They just think we're too stupid to realize how bad an idea it is.
They think that we're going to be hoodwinked by all of the feel-good slogans about investing in New Zealand's future and cutting out the foreign investors and stuff like that.
But I'm happy to report that judging by the media roundup I just read you, we're not at all as stupid as Labour thinks we are.
We can see a dog policy when we're presented with one, and this is one.
Heather du Plessis-Allan is a journalist and commentator who hosts Newstalk ZB's Drive show HERE - where this article was sourced.
3 comments:
Hang on Heather. Liquid Lux also proposed a Singapore-style wealth fund. He also had not one clue how to fund it and, as usual, his proposal was hot air & Unilever style marketing mumbo jumbo. Don't fall into the trap, as I once did, of being partisan. Public debt is exploding, there are scant domestic savings to fund national investment, and Lux and student debater Willis have no clue how to sort out these problems. Willis lied on the Platform saying public debt would be falling. It is not, and projected to reach 100% of GDP in the next couple of decades.
The other glaring problem is rent seeking and bureaucracy. They would, of course, require a certain proportion of the funds to go to Maori businesses. There is nothing wrong with investing in Maori businesses, but it should be on the same basis as any other business. They will demand that they only invest in 'ethical' businesses, and that will restrict the day-to-day operation of start-ups (eg. protests against Rocket Labs). They will also demand 'protections for taxpayers' which mean rent-seeking through extra controls, audits and regulations. I.e. everything that entrepreneurs need to avoid will be loaded-up on the start-up businesses, which will smother them before they can get out of the crib.
As always - we can rely on Maiki Sherman to give us a LEFT biased report.
Post a Comment