The reason the left hate privatisation is they are losers in the real world. Most of these fools are incapable of running a business, or doing a job well enough to be promoted.

"Many state house tenants have lived in their current house for decades. It is effectively their family home – except they don’t own it".

NONONONONO - this is as silly as stating that because a tenant has lived in a privately owned house for many years that it is "effectively their family home", it is not, it belongs to the owner of the house. it is their home.

If state house tenants wish to purchase a home they should struggle, save and do it the same as everyone else. It is not privatisation unless the State stays out of it, which means opening the homes up for tender at market rates to the highest bidder.

What the Nats are proposing here is not privatisation anyway. Who will end up footing the bill when these homes need repair? Who pays subsidies and tax credits to these people who are in effect net beneficiaries? That's right.....you do...the taxpayer.

The left quite simply believe that if there is no private property... then there is no entitlement to a private life. The objective is to divorce us from any means of independence that has the effect of rendering them obsolete. They Control (BIG C) our schools, and use this and State Housing/welfare to create voting clusters... and to farm new generations of supporters. The left had the same 'anti' argument in the UK when Thatcher quadrupled the size of the middle classes by extending this scheme to council tenants... love her or hate her she created more wealth for working class people than the left could conceive. The very same nay-sayers are those Labour leaders who now live very high on the hog... such as two-Jags Prescott or the "it's only a small stately home" Blairs. Bottom line... the left hate the right because the right IS right.

Further to David's excellent column, some of you may not have seen the release below:

Policy stands the test of time

Bereft of angles to attack the government’s announcement that state house tenants will have the opportunity to buy the homes they’re living in – such is the policy’s commonsense – Labour has gotten itself in a frightful tangle trying to oppose it, says Housing Minister Phil Heatley.

For starters there’s the mere fact Labour opposes the idea at all, given that Labour leader and former Housing Minister Phil Goff once saw great virtue in practically the same policy.

“If Phil Goff’s mana and judgment sees him deserving of the role of party leader, why is an almost identical state housing policy he once proudly sold to the public suddenly considered to be without merit?” Mr Heatley queried.

He was referring to an Evening Post story in October 1986 about Mr Goff’s initiative to allow sales of state houses to the tenants living in them.

“Lifting the ban is designed to give long-standing tenants whose houses have become their homes the opportunity to buy the properties,” Mr Goff told the paper.

“The sale of those houses and the purchase of replacement properties will assist the Housing Corporation to house more applicants off the waiting list,” he continued.

Sound familiar? Yesterday National announced state house tenants will have the option to buy the house they are living in from Housing New Zealand Corporation from mid September.

The response from Labour’s housing spokesperson Moana Mackey was absurd on the one hand and confusing on the other.

First she claimed “the average state house now has a value of around $350,000” and on that basis tenants would be stretched to raise finance.

Then she said Labour had serious concerns that some of the increasing state housing stock would be made up of long-term leases from private property owners.

“While National never suggested huge numbers of state tenants were likely to take up this opportunity, the reality is far less frightening than Ms Mackey would have them believe, given that the average value of a state house is actually $220,000.

“And Labour’s sudden aversion to the state landlord leasing properties from the private sector is surely one of the most violent u-turns in political history.

“Not only is Moana Mackey thumbing her nose at her leader’s ideas and getting her sums wrong, after just six months in opposition she seems to have forgotten that as recently as 2007 Labour oversaw the acquisition by Housing New Zealand of 268 new state houses and the leasing of 420 – a whopping 56 per cent more leases than purchases.

“I look forward to Labour clarifying that it no longer supports Housing New Zealand leasing homes for needy state tenants from the private sector,” Mr Heatley said.

“It will be quite a come down given that between 2003 and 2007 Labour was happy for Housing New Zealand to acquire 1864 additional state homes but also lease 2110 from the private sector.”

There is a perfecty good reason why the Left hate the Private sector:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56494

Because they are 'mentally ill' as this veteran psychiatrist says. Come having a political agenda based on:

* creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
* satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
* augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
* rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.

you have to be mad.

All I can say is good on the government for give responsibility state housing tenants now if they stay out of everybody elses live and let us decide what to spend our money on NZ might become a livable place but for now, I am struggling!

..and of course the real reason the left are opposed to this measure is that it undermines their voting base.

From any more rational perspective, state house renters given a discount to buy the homes they live in is an instance of a short term cost bringing a long term credit.

The credit is the incremental replacement of the state dependency mentality the left cultivate (as a means to power), with a universal mindset of self reliance.

The left know that the more people in NZ who are self reliant, the less voters for Labour.

It is in their interests therefore to keep self reliance as low as possible, and encourage dependency.

Ergo, to Labour, people buying state houses is a bad idea.

Thanks for a great article.

I utterly agree with Privatus and Redbaiter - we all know this is not an issue of who extracts residual value the state misses, or about houses being built in cheaper areas. The state has never been the most efficient market player, regardless of who is in power, which is to be expected, given market intervention is not its primary purpose.

The real issue is that the left wing knows its entire powerbase relies upon New Zealanders not being in a position to argue. Financial independence undermines the left structure at its core.

As Privatus noted, "If there is no private property... then there is no entitlement to a private life"; and, Labour hopes, no entitlement to a private opinion.

How do you justify giving state housing tenants preferential buying rights as being a free market operation? This reeks of Government unnecessary and manipulative intervention.

There are countless UK state house tenants who were able to buy their state house during the Thatcher years, and it effectively allowed them to get a rung up and become middle class. These include poor people who would traditionally have been Labour.

If we can do the same thing here, and allow a greater number of people to become affluent, I don't see why we should have a problem with it. There is a huge, often unaccounted cost on subsidising people at a subsistence level. This will let them help themselves if they choose.

I applaud maestro of the rational Nick Bryant on his excellent posting (and his knowledge of fine wine).

Take this opinion from a right wing private sector caitalist - we have let down the "left", or those who by accident of birth, or age, are unable to run a bath, let alone a business. Not their fault, they have neither the skills nor the environment to advance themselves (possibly apart from becoming leftwing politicians).
That is as much a truism as the fact that the business bozo's who have let us down are those hellbent on impressing us with their trophy spouses, bigger boats, Remmers or Merivale homes,seeking faux recognition of their claimed superiority, giving the Bradfords and Phil Goofs of this world a rich (?) source of votes ongoing. Er, Wall Street, anyone? Hanover Finance?
Some integrity and honesty is required here. Don't blame the left - we contributed big-time to their prejudices, which keeps the Labour Party up there as a likely Governement. Seismic change is needed, and honesty from those right of Genghis Khan, commenting above.

"if my family lives in a tent for many years and I don't own the tent it still, effectively, is my home. Home is where the heart is"

That's a silly example from a silly comment isn't it?

If that tent is on privately owned land it can never be your home can it? You would be squatting and evicted. As I am sure you would evict others who squatted on your privately owned front lawn.

Families are not a nation's future - taxpayers are. Until you can turn state house tenants into real net taxpayers then the nation has a future of supporting eternal beneficiaries. Throwing them a house will only create an expectation of more dependency that if you are poor you get a cheap house - the country cannot afford that mindset.

This plan on the face of it looks like a good one. Sell houses, build new ones, creates work, reduction of waiting lists etc etc. Its likely new state houses will have to be built on cheaper land, i.e. not central city suburbs, or costal land.

While I personally dispise Sue, her point here is real. A good number of the 90s HomeBuy sales were quickly onsold to developers. The houses, in most cases, were sold too cheaply in the first place, and then market driven forces simply took over.

So some rules will be required to make this work as intended, but thats pretty much true of everything.

Hi Redbaiter, yep, I'm absolutely sure, there will be no discount like in the 1990s; sales will only be at independent market valuations.

Also, those who opt to buy will not have access to a state house for three years, so there's no room for any sort of creative buy-and-flick-off to a developer for a quick profit and then return to a state house behaviour, not that there would appear to be much scope for "quick profits" given that sales will be at current market valuation. But just in case, that avenue is closed off.
(Press secretary for Phil Heatley)

Only the ignorant or willfully dishonest would suggest The Left hates private enterprise - as equally as suggesting The Right hates State welfare.

It's time to get educated and stop acting like this is a question of faith and religion.

The Left equates with control and state knows best. The Right equates with individual enterprise. Part of the reason Labour lost last November was that it overdid the control. Labour thinks people need to be looked after while National believes people should be helped to be self sufficient hence selling them state houses.

i read your blog with some intrest david you sound like a vary nervious ol nat . whats the matter david cant you torys hack a strong opposition . if you go back to the nats efforts in opposition they were pathetic for years . if you cant stand the heat davey boy you know what to do .

Labour campaign 2008 was...KiwiBank KiwiRail etc etc. Kiwi to them was owned by the State. What the rest of us were was not clear. But next election they could remind us of their nine years...

Kiwi Crime
Kiwi crime victims
Kiwis departed for Aussie
Kiwis on sickness benefits
Kiwi kids on DPB
Kiwi state territory expansion

More ???