I should be working on a learned article that will set the world of legal academia aflame. But it's Friday.

So, it's Friday afternoon and I'm not really in much of a state of mind to do anything of any great value. That being so, here's some things that I have wondered about in the last few days.

  • When John Key says:

"Under the mixed ownership model Air New Zealand has been a creative and innovative company and a model corporate citizen. It has also offered some very competitive prices for air travel. I am convinced that Air New Zealand would not be run as well, nor provide as good a service to customers, if it was owned 100 percent by the government"

Is there anything more than ideological pre-commitment to vindicate that belief? In particular, how does the performance of the entirely publicly owned Kiwibank impact upon the claim? Is it somehow different, or is the assumption that if it too were partly privately owned, it would do even better?

  • If shares in Solid Energy are offered to the public, as National is proposing should it lead the next Government, will they be at a price that reflects the $3.5 billion that the SOE thinks it is worth or the $1.6 billion that Forsyth Barr values it at or the $1.7 billion arrived at by Macquarie, and who gets to decide that question? Further, why is it that an unmentionable idea from last June is now official National policy?
  • If you are a political party who is involved in a disciplinary stoush with one of your MPs, it is not a good thing when the lawyer you have hired to advise you (as well as the amount you have set aside to pay her) becomes a major part of the story. While I am sure the original announcement, along with subsequent media appearances by said lawyer, was intended to show how committed the party was to following proper processes, it hasn't worked out that way at all.
  • Scott is right - Hone may eventually lose the battle, but so far he is winning the war.
  • If National now really can't win enough votes to govern alone, as predicted here here by a reinvigorated Danyl McLachlin at the Dim-Post, does that mean Rodney Hide is pretty much guaranteed a free run at Epsom? And might National be thinking Peter Dunne's return would be additional useful insurance against a squeaker of a result?
  • Doesn't it speak volumes about the dire state of our political discourse that David Farrar can say that Labour made a mistake by:

"Having [Phil Goff's] new hair colour appear the same day as the major economic speech of the year. I mean how dumb is that. A retarded POLS 101 student could tell you that the new hair colour would distract from the speech."

And actually be right?

  • If Jimmy Buffett hadn't fallen off the stage in Sydney and had to cancel his Auckland concert, would he have played this song at it? And is it really true his audience would have consisted of "frat boys and alcoholic chicks from the South"?

Like I say - it's a quiet Friday. And as you can see, I really have far too much time to think about stuff.

 

Comments (2)

by Dean Knight on January 31, 2011
Dean Knight

As one who loves random thoughts and randomness generally, I thought this post needed a random comment...

by Hesiod on April 01, 2011
Hesiod

hey how about thinking how much cash you will make if you are on the 'in' and get a whole parcel of shares that you stag later on for 500% profit. and you dont even have to pay for them up front!

now how random is that?

Post new comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.