THE CONVERSATION 2

Now here’s an interesting article from earlier this year (before the election);

"Cuts to EQC enable $372m surplus"

And here’s another interesting article more recently (AFTER the election);

"Government surplus in doubt"

Weeeellllllllll, who’d have thought THAT would happen!!? The finances return briefly to surplus before the election, but mysteriously drop when the right-wing hacks have bought and spun their way back into power? Gosh. Between elections, at the most serious, highest levels of government, I bet a conversation like this took place:

BILL: Hey John, the old finances are a bit up shit-creek.
JOHN: WHAT? What do you mean?!! We promised the proles a surplus by 2014!! Our whole bloody re-election might depend on it!
BILL: Yeah, but what we promise and what we can deliver are two different things.
JOHN: Pfff. [Rolls his eyes] Ain't that the truth? Well tell me, farm boy; what are the figures?
BILL: Well, we have a surplus of $372m.
JOHN: Fantastic! So, what’s the problem, bumpkin?
BILL: Well, we had to cut $200m from EQC to do it - God forbid that Christchurch find out about it! As well as that, you said we’d bail out AMI’s earthquake liability.  You said on Campbell Live, “We will not walk through this alone, Christchurch.”  
JOHN: Big deal. So What?
BILL: Umm…. AMI didn’t re-insure itself enough. The directors didn’t buy enough overseas cover for a major event like his.
JOHN: ** sigh ** So what? Get to the point, sheep shagger.
BILL: AMI’s earthquake liability is $500m. They’re bust, remember?
JOHN: So what? It’s clearly the shit part of the business. Separate off the broken part and screw the policy holders.
BILL: Weeeeellllll ….. we can’t do that, I think. We have thousands of Christchurch householders who would have their assets nullified as AMI policy holders. And Campbell Live would eat that lunch before we had pancakes.
JOHN:  Shit.
BILL: And .. . they’d tell all their friends around the country. Our ratings would sink from sympathy, and we’d never be re-elected.

JOHN: Bugger. Ok, what do you recommend?
BILL: No idea, I’m just used to dealing with sheep miscarriages and fences. Gosh, John, this is your specialty . . .
JOHN: Hmmm. Ok, I’ve an idea. How’s this? We break up AMI. We set up a separate company from the broken bit of the AMI debacle.

BILL: Do we sack the incompetent directors from AMI?
JOHN: Hell no, they’re our friends and potential National donors. No, let our mates have the good bits of AMI still, and we’ll manage the shit part somehow.
BILL: So how are we going to spin the debt and the break-off, and the failed business without hurting our corporate buddies?
JOHN: Hmm. Well, first of all, we call the failed-bit of AMI something friendly, like “Southern Response.” That’ll keep the Christchurch proles suckered into thinking we actually care about them, rather than the truth -  which is our wafer-thin surplus promise to the rest of the country. Next, we’ll hire some Aussie pitbull as Southern Response's Chief Executive to fuck-over policy holders who dare to ask for their entire policy entitlement.
BILL: Duh, how will that help?
JOHN: Hmm .? .. . hang on . . just looking for something [flick, flick, flick] . . .  GOT HIM! Peter Rose. Characterless, cold, numbers-robot. Perfect. We’ll remind him his SOLE responsibility is to the National Party - AH – Ahem – I mean, eh . . . to the TAXPAYER. Then we’ll let him off the leash.
BILL: SO, HOW DOES THAT SOLVE THE SURPLUS PROBLEM?!!!!! Oh gosh, I’m only a simple farmer, John! I only understand fly strike and lusty rams. I just can’t keep up with your sophisticated manipulation of metro politics!

JOHN:  Hah! And that, my friend, is exactly why a convicted goat-fucker wearing a blue rosette would be still elected in some of your farm-country provinces! Hang in there, sheep-shagger, and I’ll summerise:

• We have $372m surplus, but $500m AMI debt. 
• We’ll drip feed $100 each year to Southern Response to get Christchurch houses fixed. It’ll take 5 years for quake-stressed Christchurch residents to have their houses fixed, but our election promises and business buddies’ interest are much more important. 
• We can STILL spin that we’re helping Christchurch [**snigger**]

BILL: Duh, so, I can say we have a $372m surplus going into election year – even though we don’t, really?
JOHN: Yup.
BILL:  What about the $80b we have in accumulated debt since we got into power, because of loss of revenue from tax cuts to our rich buddies!!?
JOHN: Sssshhhhhhhh
BILL: Ok, wait.  So you’re saying, we have $80b accumulated debt, including $500m from our shite executive mates at AMI? We can manipulate a surplus only if we cut EQC’s money and limit the liability to Southern Response to only 20% this year. That means $372m surplus, with only $100 mill this year to Southern Response?!!
JOHN: Yup.
BILL: Whoof. That’s a big ask of Christchurch!
JOHN: They a Labour city or National City?
BILL:   What? Um . . Christchurch? Ehhhh . . this election or next election?
JOHN:  Any election.
BILL:   Umm, pretty much Labour every time.
JOHN:  Huh. Then, fuck ‘em.


FURTHER READING: 
* Government surplus on a knife edge
* Government says surplus on track despite treasury predictions 
* Southern response investments
* Accountant claims surplus result of clever accounting

THE CONVERSATION

Parklands residents in Christchurch seem to be screaming out to “Go Red.” They want to take the government “offer” following the earthquakes and get out. I think there’s a lot of folk missing a fundamental point here. If we “Go Red,” those of us who are not insurance re-builds will have to find the $100,000 shortfall - or more - to pay for the same kind of home we had before the quakes, as a result of John’s “offer”. Yes, if we stay “Green TC3,” we may be subject to liquefaction. I know neither scenario is palatable, but if we “Go Red,” the government will deliver us into the waiting hands of the mortgage lenders, property developers and lawyers. Call me old fashioned, but that’s why I paid off my mortgage in the first place – to be rid of those parasites. Uh, oh - I can hear my critics now. I’m going to be accused of being harsh; “These are not parasites - these are professional people providing you a valued service!”

“parasite n. interested hanger-on; sycophant; animal or plant living in or on another.” [Oxford Dictionary]

Now, if I was a cynical man (and recent events are getting me there), this is the kind of conversation I bet took place last year:

JOHN: Hmm. This earthquake’s a bit of a bugger, Gezza. And we’ve got a recession. Our corporate friends are finding it pretty tough in Christchurch. What can we do?
GERRY: What about making those middle-class mortagage whores in Parklands homeless?
JOHN: How would that help the economy?
GERRY: Well, they would need to find and pay for new homes. There’ll be all kinds of spin-off revenues for our friends; land deals, new sections, lawyers’ fees, new mortgages, new house sales. Yummy.
JOHN: We can’t do that! We can’t just turf them out of their homes … Can we?
GERRY: Oh.... Yeah … Good point. Hmmm. Hang on! What about giving them a little “compensation”? Not enough to buy a new home as they had, but enough to give them some more vain hope.
JOHN: Sorry; what do you mean by “more vain hope”?
GERRY: Well, they’ll have to work even longer and harder to afford those new homes (the ones they already had before the quakes), in the vain hope of perhaps getting promotion at work, a pay rise, or even (snigger!) paying off the mortgage.
JOHN: Not sure about this. They’ll be mightily pissed off that we’re not fully compensating them for the loss of their home in the quakes. Let’s face it, we’ve had sixty years to prepare for this, and we’ve given it all away in tax cuts to our friends. Remember, you big bugger, you said publicly on Campbell Live, “It’s all about equity preservation.”
GERRY: Pfff! They’ll forget that. I’ll just deny it or put another spin on what I really said. They’ve been through quakes and liquefaction – they’ll want out at any price.
JOHN: But how the buggery would we afford that? Even SOME compensation is going to cost. Putting up income tax would hurt our friends – the ones who sponsor us.
GERRY: Pfff! We’ve bought off the mortgage whores before. We gave our establishment friends big tax cuts, and those pokey homeowners were happy with crumbs off the rich man’s table. No, we’ll just put up GST and other regressive taxes, instead. Tax the proles.
JOHN: But GST hurts our friends as well – it would mean luxury boats, designer suits and exclusive cars would cost more.
GERRY: That’s OK, they can afford it. They’ve got that back in spades from the huge income tax cuts we gave them three years ago.
JOHN: What about the proles – petrol, food and power will be much more expensive in relative terms.
GERRY: Fuck ‘em.
JOHN: I’m listening.
GERRY: And because jobs are so scarce in Christchurch right now, our friends wouldn’t have to put up with all those moaner mortgage whores asking for pay rises.
JOHN: So what you’re saying is, we make the quake-shocked homeowners homeless, give them some (not a lot) compensation for their house, so that they’ll work harder and longer to pay for the additional mortgage payments? We deliver traumatised, vulnerable people into the waiting hands of our mortgage lender, property developer and lawyer friends?
GERRY: Yup.
JOHN: Get it done.