Preponderate – to exceed in amount, influence, importance or weight; To be greater than something else in force, power or quantity, predominate.
Softening for milk payout drop?
March 7, 2012An email from Fonterra chair Sir Henry van der Heyden this week warned farmers the outlook for milk is uncertain.
Total EU dairy exports are up 8.8% and the February milk price in the USA is 6.2% lower than it was at the same time last year.
Could he be softening us up for an announcement that the payout might be lower than forecast?
The price of milk has been fluctuating and the trade-weighted index price of milk dropped .9% in this morning’s GlobalDairyTrade auction.
The price of anhydrous milk fat increased 3.7%; cheddar was down 1.3% mik protein concentrate dropped 7.6%; rennet casein was down 2.5%; skim milk powder was down 1.9% and whole milk powder was down .3%.
Love pops up in unexpected places
March 7, 2012Answer of the day from yesterday’s Question Time:
4. DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his recent statements?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes, especially the one I said to my wife when I told her I loved her.
The video is here.
Many reasons for MOM
March 7, 2012Prime Minister John Key explained the reasoning behind the Mixed Ownership Model for state assets during Question Time yesterday:
The mixed-ownership model is there for a variety of extremely sound reasons. For a start-off, it is to give New Zealanders an opportunity to have some quality assets to invest in. This is actually what opponents of the mixed-ownership model are saying: they are saying it is OK for the New Zealand Superannuation Fund to be the custodian of $17 billion worth of New Zealanders’ assets, and to invest in just about every single Australian energy company, but it is not to be allowed to invest in New Zealand energy companies, with the exception of Contact Energy. Secondly, the Government wants to expand the balance sheet, not contract the balance sheet, and in 5 years’ time we will have $22 billion more of assets. Thirdly, I do not know whether the member watches TV, but if he does he will see countries that are highly indebted, like Greece, and realise that that is not the right way to be going.
Quite why it is acceptable for our super fund to invest in Australian energy companies but be limited to investing in only one of ours escapes me.
Why opponents to the MOM think increasing borrowing from foreign banks is preferable to providing investment options for domestic individuals and institutions is even more puzzling.
Who else would they vote for?
March 7, 2012The Sunday Star Times was excited by the 100 emails Prime Minister John Key received from people opposed to the sale of the Crafar Farms to Shanghai Pengxin, calling it a heartland backlash.
One farmer said he had been a National supporter for 45 years but the agreement to sell the farms to Chinese interests ahead of New Zealanders was the “final nail in the coffin”.
Key received more than 100 emails or letters opposed to the sale, most within days of the announcement of the deal with Shanghai Pengxin.
“For many years I have voted for National and I believe in the philosophies. I am utterly disappointed at the decision to sell the farms to a foreign buyer … 2011 will be the last time I vote for National,” one said.
Another wrote: “We have always supported you, and National, but we aren’t with you on this. We have to let you know how strongly we feel about this.”
One wonders how much these people understand about the National Party’s philosophy and principles because there is nothing there that would restrict the freedom of people to sell their own land to the highest bidder nor is there anything that would support xenophobia.
Regardless of that, 100 emails isn’t many on a hot-button issue.
“Pretty much on any issue in New Zealand I’ll get 100 emails, and sometimes I get 10,000 emails if it’s a significant issue. So there’s a mixture of views, no doubt about that,” he told TV One’s Breakfast show.
Mr Key said the Crafar farms sale was not the main issue farmers raised with him.
“Certainly I’ve been around a lot of rural events – the Waimumu Field Days, the Golden Shears on Saturday night – and that’s not really the issue they’re coming up and talking about,” he said.
“Some farmers come up to me and say `Look, I own the farm, it’s my property right and I should be able to sell it to whoever I like.’ Others say they don’t want the farmland going overseas. There’s definitely a range of views but I don’t see it hurting National support.”
People who change allegiance on a single issue aren’t strong supporters to start with, and any farmers who think they’re not happy with National only need to look at yesterday’s debate on changes to pastoral lease rentals to see how much worse off they’d be with a Labour-led government:
The Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill will replace the land valuation basis for setting rents on pastoral leases (on mainly high country farms) with a system based on the income earning potential of the farm land.
Labour MP Raymond Huo said his party was opposing the bill because it was subsidising some high country farmers and did not reflect the real worth of the Crown owned land.
Agriculture Minister David Carter accused Labour of the politics of jealousy and envy and said their policies in Government had shown a “lack of care for the most fragile farming environment’’ in the country.
He said former prime minister Helen Clark had attempted to “drive’’ the farmers off the land and turn it into part of the conservation estate.
The Government now wanted to allow farmers to pay a rent based on the income they could take off the land while maintaining it for future generations. The Crown, he said, had proven to be a poor caretaker of the high country land.
The loss of tussock at the top of the Lindis Pass is a sad reminder of what happens when the Crown tries to replace the high country farmers who have looked after pastoral lease land for generations.
Another example of how poorly Labour understands farming was last year’s beat-up on how much tax they pay.
As Cactus Kate asks, if farmers aren’t going to vote for National, who would they support?
. . . Labour who will tax the sale on their farm at 15% who along with the Greens will make them pay for their pollution and treat them as the rich pricks they deserve to be treated as? NZ First…hehe…..
The small number of farmers who have their noses in a knot over the farm sales are shooting the wrong target.
I have nothing against the sale of the farms to foreigners but those who do should be directing the ire at the receivers who insisted on selling the farms as a job lot rather than individually. That would have opened up a far larger number of would-be buyers and made it much easier for locals to make realistic offers.
Election win gives mandate
March 7, 2012Elections in New Zealand are run on a multitude of issues.
The winning party can’t claim to have a mandate on every issue but holding a majority in parliament gives it a mandate to govern and to do what it said it would do in its campaign even if that isn’t popular.
The Opposition has done a good job in stirring up opposition to what it labels asset sales but is more accurately a partial sale.
But the attempt to force a referendum on the issue of the Mixed Ownership Model for a few state assets is a stunt which will, if it is successful, cost a lot but change nothing.
Asked about the plans for a referendum today, Key said: “We’ve had that, it was called an election.”
He said National had openly campaigned on the issue and won the election decisively.
As the Prime Minister pointed out in parliament yesterday there are many reasons that more voters favoured National than any other party in the election:
I accept that voters’ votes are for a variety of different reasons. I think voters who voted for National in the last campaign did so because they knew that we could manage the economy better than Labour and the Greens, they knew that we would have a better jobs programme than Labour and the Greens, they knew that we would run the health system better than Labour and the Greens, they knew that we would run the police force better than Labour and the Greens, and they knew that we would look after education services and demand standards better than Labour and the Greens. So I accept that there is a multitude of reasons, but you would have to say election 2011 was very much on the mixed-ownership model, and, on that basis, more people voted for National than in the previous election.
Some people might have voted for National in spite of the mixed ownerhsip model policy but even with almost all other parties vigorously opposing the partial sale of a few energy companies, the party won enough seats to lead the government.
That gives it a mandate to enact the policies on which it campaigned with or without a referendum.