Colin, I'm stunned. I thought every political journalist realised it is impossible to be too cynical about politicians. The truth is invariably worse than you can possibly imagine.

Fair comment Colin, however I think the 'average punter' as you put it, is more interested in the inherent dishonesty and corruption exhibited via the DHB outrage than the minor stumblings of a 'good bloke' type fellow who is far less inexperienced in the art of political gob speak than are his oponents.

People are really just 'over' Labour.

Yeah, one back for Labour. Not sure how much of a victory it is given the disasters they face but might be a morale booster. It should also be a reminder to National that it needs to draw some lines in the sand and actually be prepared to argue issues on the merits. Sure, National had to swallow a dead rat or two (student loans for eg) but at the end of the day National is a centre right party and it's loyal supporters want to hear centre-right policies. A strong statement condemning Labour for shifting the goal posts and spurning foreign investment might have got the Greens excited but it would have been consistent and, frankly, expected by most National supporters.

Minor correction there Colin - the railways were sold by National in 1993, not Labour

How would you like it if you were driving down the road at 100Km per hour and a cop pulls you over and starts writing you a speeding ticket. You weren't going over the posted sign but the cop informs you what was written was written, but he has just changed the rules right now and you fall foul of that. It creates unnecessary grief/mistrust among other things. Both current shareholders and the Canadian pension plan people must be a bit annoyed.

If JK starts to offer an answer before he knows what it should be, then that is an issue (see I can admit faults in the party I prefer) however perhaps a politician that chooses to say something like "I don't know I'll get back to you when I do know" is a real stumble. Colin you would know the kind of stuff ups you love to hear. What answer/lack of is more of a gaffe? Not all of us are media trained.

A semi xenophobic tone has come from some supporters about "big companies" from overseas. What do they think about the so called Cullen fund being invested outside New Zealand. Is it wrong for others to invest here, should we not invest in other countries as well to be consistent? Should KiwiSaver not go through foreign companies to be managed?

Btw I don't think John is slippery, if he gets anywhere as slippery as Helen I'll be worried.

My last thought, there is a difference between a controlling stake (51% or more of a company) and just owning some shares) I think the government is more worried about having outsiders having a say in performance of things. I do not know if Auckland Airport is owned at all by the govt/local, but in public companies the shareholders get a say in things like income vs expenditure. This govt has shown it has taken 9 years to loosen its income (apart from Peter Dunne getting business tax cuts) and in terms of expenditure it tells us lots about the billions it spends but never the quality of the spending (such as the Salvation Army report) saying despite all that spending people are just worse off. They don't like critics who can have a binding say in changing their plans.

Whats the fuss all about, is any NZ asset worth keeping?

Well the government does not care that they wiped off a Billion dollars of Telecom and now 300 Million off Auckland Airport shares. Who cares if the rich prick investors lose money, the more the better especially those retired ones.

No wonder no one invests in NZ shares and all spare cash goes into property.

It’s amazing that this is the government who voted against twenty odd amendments to the Overseas Investment Act put forwards by Ron Donald three years ago. All these amendments were based around protection of strategic assets and protection of infrastructure and land. I quote Dr Cullen “I want to say quite clearly that it is critical for the future of this country, and for our social and cultural development, that we have a welcoming and open attitude towards inwards foreign investment” he continues “ if this country relied on its own capital resources alone, we would not just not grow; this economy would shrink, because our investment levels would be insufficient to maintain our current level of economic activity”.

Now that is a turn around isn’t it, looks very much like the main motivation is the 20 points in the polls. Although I do say National has not helped itself on this one.

I just hope this rather cynical act by the government does not do to much harm to the country. What next are they willing to do? Anything for power, they just have to go and the sooner the better for the country as a whole.

Interesting events. Yes, I watched the JK/Paul Henry interview on Breakfast & yes, JK gave every appearance of being uncomfortable.

Ak Airport. Strategic asset? Because it is the gateway to Ak? Or in these troubled times is it prudent for NZers to maintain control over our border security etc?

Asset sales are a bit tricky, in the public's mind. This one is not just a , say, manufacturing company or an hotel, it is the main airport. And surely 40% can fairly easily be added to by casually buying out 'Mums & Dads' from time to time.

I am glad there is an Overseas Investment Act (or whatever it is), so that some care can be taken.

Oh Tut Tut! This is plain pathetic left-wing journalism attempting to beat up a story on nothing to try and paint Labour as smart. Intelligent people in the electorate will see through this and realise that there is nothing sinister in JK's comments but they will see through Labour's weak & irresponsible attempts to curry favour with the electorate in the quest for power no matter the cost. I would rather a politician had a cup of tea before mouthing off about the vote-chasing legislation Labour cobbled together in 5 minutes. You lefties don't understand consequences of hastily-made comments that you try to get politicians to make so as you can create a beat up story. These are simply to attempt to get politicians to make slip-ups for a story. We are not all gullible.....

I have no idea how you can try to deflect blame from Labour for a hypocritical about turn on policy and investment on Mr Key?

Let's think about this for a bit.

A) Is the policy good? It depends on what your political beliefs are, it's not good for NZ international investment reputation, it's not good for existing shareholders, and some would argue it's good as its in the 'National Interest' (obviously stable investment regulation and laws are not of interest). B) Was the policy implemented transparently? Hell no, it's backdated (never a good look), reactionary, most of the market had no idea ($300 million gone...), and a bit more of our international investment reputation gone.

I must admit it would have been better for National to come out and slam this shonky decision making process, but I have to assume that he didn't know it was coming (like most others). But debate over the policy itself is far more important than discussing National's slow response to this.

And I don't even want to think about the possibility that the timing of this may have been some sort of $300 million political stunt.