v16
Sue B must have missed being the target of massive opprobrium, cos she’s gone and done it again, with her new Private Members Bill to lower the voting age.
The filthy and furious emails are already rolling in, and the talkback is gearing up…
For some serious and considered comment, try the always reliable Idiot Savant.
There have been some supportive releases, from NZAAHD, “Youthful Councillors” (not a bad band name) and the Maori Party.
Any thoughts?
Bookmark to:
June 21st, 2007 at 6:17 pm
As a 16-year-old I have to say I think this is a great idea. I have been fascinated by politics since the 1999 election, and, having formed some quite strong views on several issues, have found not having a voice increasingly frustrating. I’m not looking forward to the prospect of being unable to vote next year - I don’t turn 18 until January 2009 - so I’m delighted to hear about Sue’s bill.
June 21st, 2007 at 6:50 pm
I thought that the anti smacking bill was ridiculous but now Sue has gone one better.
I wonder what lies she will tell in support of this bill?
June 21st, 2007 at 6:51 pm
I’m with Tammy - there’s no philosophical or practical reason why it shouldn’t be lowered.
I’m also actually optimistic about its chances of gaining support from other political parties.
ACT and the Maori Party will support it and I suspect United will too. Labour would be mad not to, while National would look very prudish were it argue against such a bill.
June 21st, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Be an interesting excercise to to the electoral boundaries with the 16 year olds included in the electorates.
Wholesale changes?
But why set the age at 16? Reasoning develops at around age 7 so why not set the age to 10 or even 7?
What is so magical about 16?
Intersting that we have to legislate to have school tuck shops provide only healthy food. Indicating while we want to trust 16 year olds to vote, we can not trust them to buy the right foods at high school from the tuck shop.
Says something about the level of trust we put into 16 year olds!!
Interesting times to say the least!!!!
June 21st, 2007 at 7:55 pm
LOL - well done Gerrit for picking up on the irony. I’d be in favour of removing the voting age all together.
Big Bro you’ve really outdone yourself with the last comment. All posturing and no reason. The lame blogs continue.
I’d like to suggest three reasons why the bill is justified:
1. No taxation without representation
2. Encourages a sense of social and individual responsibility amongst young people
3. Young people will have to live with the consequences of today’s political decisions longer than anyone else
June 21st, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Gerrit
Very well said, BTW does anybody know what Sue is talking about when she mentions “Civics”, I can only assume she is not talking about a motor car.
June 21st, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Stu
Bit worried about making the 5% threshold are you?..hoping for a few voted from the teenagers?
June 21st, 2007 at 8:23 pm
I really can’t see any harm in it. Those that take an interest in politics should have a chance to have their say.
There are quite a few negative comments from those who think they know better, but I think it would be good to see more opinions on this from 16 and 17 year olds themselves.
Issues of importance to a 16/17 year old might be: environment, employment rights, student loans, careers, training
- a scary thought to some people I guess.
June 21st, 2007 at 8:33 pm
of course 16 yr olds should get the vote..
like every other age group..those who are interested will partake..
those who aren’t ..won’t..
i would really like to hear some rational argument against..
but of the flakey ones..only b.b. is here..
so…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
June 21st, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Shaky: “A scary thought to some people I guess”
You said it. Check out Ian Wishart’s co-blogger (and general all-round reactionary crank) Andrei at tbr.cc:
The sound of an old stick-in-the-mud waking up and discovering the times passing him by. What a beautiful noise!
June 21st, 2007 at 8:43 pm
plum
You have a problem with Wishart stating the truth?
June 21st, 2007 at 8:50 pm
I was pretty gobsmacked by the vehemence of the opposition to the idea expressed in the Herald’s Your Views, what a load of scary voices there are in there,
cherry picking a few examples … “Children should be seen and not heard” … “New Zealand’s young are becoming a new breed of terrorists” … “a very small minority of them have the maturity” … “considerable difficulty handling issues” … “not mature enough to know the responsibilities” … “youth of today, out of control” … “16-year-olds do not have the maturity to conduct themselves in a fit and responsible manner”
Well maybe Herald Your View participant’s kids are badly brought up louts, but Green Party voters kids are sensible, articulate, intelligent, passionate, well balanced young people.
Maybe it’s got something to do with their respective upbringings … junk food, no exercise, driven everywhere, mall visiting, spoilt consummerist … VS … organic veges, bush walking, craft making, recycled wrapping paper, TV banned.
June 21st, 2007 at 8:55 pm
whoa BB, by “the truth” I presume you mean “tail that wags the dog”.
I thought we established that your fanciful Greens are tail wagging dog therefore democracy is dead lets dump MMP theory was based on only 2 pieces of evidence: 1) S59 repeal (which nearly every party in Parliament voted for) and 2) Auckland rail electrification. That doesn’t sound like a lot of evidence for your theory. What about all the other policies where we don’t get what we want?
June 21st, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Finally, BB asked what Sue means by “civics” when she advocates simultaneously introducing compulsary civics education. Well the answer is …
(a) the Treaty of Waitangi; and
(b) the constitutional law and conventions of New Zealand; and
(c) the structure and electoral processes of central and local government in New Zealand; and
(d) New Zealand’s legal system; and
(e) the rights and responsibilities associated with citizenship of New Zealand.
http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/other10945.html
No doubt BB will use (a) as a chance to bluster about another of his pet subjects, but what have you got against (b) to (e), surely it will be good for the country, to have these subjects taught?
June 21st, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Sue Bradford says, according to the press release -
“At sixteen, young people can get married, have children, and be taxed. If we are serious about trying to get young peoples’ voices into the public arena and heard in places of power, they should be allowed to vote.� These statements are not strictly true as far as I know…
At sixteen young people can get married, but only with parental consent as far as I was aware. They can have children, but probably won’t if they have been raised right. They can be taxed… but not at the full rate and they get a large rebate for being minors.
Anyway, you cannot see a prostitute before you are eighteen, nor can you work as one. You cannot join the army at sixteen. You cannot buy cigarettes or alcohol under the age of eighteen and neither can you legally gamble. All of these restrictions are in place because the law does not consider that minors should be expected, as a whole, to be able to make decisions in their own best interests. None of these freedoms, not even the ones Sue said are, are available to young people without the sanction of their parents. To me, lowering the voting age suggests a necessity to lower the drinking age, make the sex industry still more liberated, reverse the progress made by the anti-smoking lobby, and let still younger people fall foul of those insidious poker machines because as voters young people should be responsible enough to enjoy such liberties. Does Ms Bradford agree?
“The main effect of the Bill would be to lower the voting age to 16 – and this change would go hand in hand with making civics education a compulsory part of the national education curriculum.�
At school we do sums and write assignments in preparation for using Mathematics and English in the real world. At university we write essays and dissertations in preparation for writing reports and articles in real jobs. Seldom in either of these cases do we expect these student attempts to be perfect, rarely does the quality of our schoolwork have any effect on our lives in the outside world. A vote is a serious decision made by an adult which affects the future of an entire nation. I can only encourage the idea of teaching civics to school children, but I am aghast at the thought that they should be encouraged to practice by voting in a national election.
What this bill looks like is the furthering of a political agenda. We’re not getting enough votes from the adult population, children are more susceptible to advertising and young people are more likely to have green sympathies so this way we’ll get more votes. Yes?
June 21st, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Big Bro - you have a particularly ignorant habit of attacking people’s motivations instead of engaging in rational debate.
My support for the Vote 16 campaign is justified on the idea that citizens who pay tax should have a say in how that tax is spent. Your suggestion that my support for Vote 16 is based on increasing the Green Party vote is … like … ahuh … stupid.
Well said Stuey. The opinions expressed on NZHerald “Your views” are very very scary. However, it’s actually rather an encouraging reminder of the low quality of opposing arguments. MPs from all parties should be able to see through the shallowness of these arguments.
June 21st, 2007 at 9:34 pm
albeniz does have a good point though where does Sue stand on other things that are currently 18-only?
Would she lower them too? Presumbly not (given what they are).
Isn’t this a logical inconsistency? That young people can’t be trusted not to smoke or visit a brothel, yet they are able to vote wisely?
And if the voting age is lowered will it then be used as evidence / a driver for lowering those other things?
Meanwhile, what about the driving age, anyone else think that should be raised? I definately don’t trust 15 year olds to drive responsibly.
June 21st, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Was this a democratic decsion?
jh
June 21st, 2007 at 9:51 pm
How old was Sue when she was a member of the Progresive Youth Movement?
They held a march to the police station chanting:“Take a walk, come on down, and see the pigs that run our town”. Maybe it was back then she decided 16 year olds should get the vote.
jh
June 21st, 2007 at 9:52 pm
removing all the big words, and disagreeing with the idea that the opinions in the herald page are scary I think this is the most sensible and obvious argument against this proposed bill:
“As a mother of a 16-year-old, I would have to say most 16-years-old have enough on their plate with their education and social life than to start having to worry about adult stuff. I personally didn’t feel ready to vote until I was 22! If we keep reducing the age for things, when are kids going to be allowed to be kids? Up to five years maybe?”
Personally I am terrified for the green party. I am scared that Sue will single handedly bring it down and that we will then lose all the good things for which the green party is the only voice in our government
June 21st, 2007 at 10:06 pm
and the award for the most creative use of an ad homenim goes to … JH !
June 21st, 2007 at 10:10 pm
oh and on the subject of band names (see frog’s post) what about Teenage Fanclub?
June 21st, 2007 at 10:12 pm
plum Says:
June 21st, 2007 at 8:38 pm
The sound of an old stick-in-the-mud waking up and discovering the times passing him by. What a beautiful noise!
…………………
Anyone with an IQ over 20 recognises the power of gearing, or leverage: a small party with unelected MP’s holding power by acting as the ounce wieght. Those in the middle (the majority) are disenfranchised and angry.
jh
June 21st, 2007 at 10:17 pm
# stuey Says:
June 21st, 2007 at 10:06 pm
and the award for the most creative use of an ad homenim goes to … JH !
………………..
I hope they dig out footage down at the NZBC!!!!! (after all they wanted publicity.. )
jh
June 21st, 2007 at 10:30 pm
I’m not sure it is an unjustified attack on Sue (ad homenim). She is proposing that 16year olds be given the vote and I am pointing out the sort of political activity she, as the proposer was involved in at the age.
Maybe she approves of the PYM and their type of ideology, typified by the catchy slogan:
“Take a walk, come on down, and see the pigs that run our town�.
Sort of goes well (in the same genre) as calling people who smack sexual perverts)….. and no doubt justified by the Green Charter and (saving the environment)!
jh
June 21st, 2007 at 10:37 pm
so JH, if the Greens “hold power” how come all the other things we support are not law? How come only a handful of things we support have been accepted by Labour?
How come we are in a free trade agreement process with China, how come the carbon tax got scrapped? how come the wellington “bypass” got built, how come the cricket team went to Zimbabwe, how come Ahmed Zaoui’s family weren’t allowed in? how come pot is not decrim, how come student loans aren’t being progressively wiped? how come Solid Energy are raping the south island landscape, how come bottom trawling and battery cages aren’t banned? How come taxes are not shifted from personal to eco-tax?
doesn’t sound like a very effective tail … or lever, does it? Maybe your theory is bunkum? What does that say for your assertion that you’d have to be a moron not to agree with your theory?
June 21st, 2007 at 10:46 pm
how come you’re not doing your damnedest to get all these things we support into the public conciousness? How come those things are no longer the first thing somebody thinks when the words ‘Green Party” are said?
June 21st, 2007 at 10:47 pm
JH, you played the man and not the ball, it was an ad homenim, whether it was justified or not is in the mind of the reader, it was certainly childish, trivial, unreferenced and repetitive.
Have you actually got anything to say on the merits or otherwise of the proposed V16 legislation or are you limited to attacks on Sue Bradford and the Greens?
June 21st, 2007 at 10:58 pm
Frog:
For some serious and considered comment, try the always reliable Idiot Savant.
Contrary to the claims of conservatives who talk grandly of “the public interest” (which somehow always coincides with the interests of the rich), democracy is not about making good decisions. What constitutes a “good” decision depends very much on what your goals and interests are, and its clear that there’s no broad agreement on that. Instead, it is a system for making our decisions - decisions we as a society can own. It is not a system for aggregating information and reaching a rational decision about what we should do - it is a system for moderating conflicting interests without the need for a messy civil war.
…………….
Reaching decisions people “own” is a second best to “aggregating information and reaching a rational decision about what we should do”, IMHO.
The smacking debate didn’t meet either criteria, since neither the majority wanted it, nor were the assumptions backed up by the most extensive, up to date and comprehensive studies.
jh
June 21st, 2007 at 11:21 pm
to carry on with what i said just above
Stuey said:
“How come we are in a free trade agreement process with China, how come the carbon tax got scrapped? how come the wellington “bypassâ€? got built, how come the cricket team went to Zimbabwe, how come Ahmed Zaoui’s family weren’t allowed in? how come pot is not decrim, how come student loans aren’t being progressively wiped? how come Solid Energy are raping the south island landscape, how come bottom trawling and battery cages aren’t banned? How come taxes are not shifted from personal to eco-tax?”
How come the party I voted for doesn’t even seem to be able to get any of these things into the media for long enough to overshadow the hugely damaging coverage of Sue bradford’s social fiddling? All of those things are the reason I supported green
i think JH’s ad hominem (note spelling) is perfectly justified. The “ball” this case is so laughable as to be irrelevant and far less interesting than the “man” to discuss. I voted for a voice for all the issues listed. Issues that I consider far more in need of public airing (WHO CARES IF YOU DON”T GET LEGISLATIVE RESULTS IN THIS TERM OF OFFICE - YOU NEED TO GET THE PUBLIC TO THINK FIRST IN A DEMOCRACY) than minor adjustments to the wording of the crimes act or increasing the un informed vote. SHEESH if Sue had put as much effort into demanding funding to enforce and acknowledge the law that was already in place she might have achieved both a better public good and better press for the party
Ad Hom away JH I think its far more relevant
June 21st, 2007 at 11:21 pm
If the criteria is that people that pay taxes get the vote, my 10 year old son could earn enough money to pay tax. He can have the vote. And people that don’t pay tax miss out at age 16? If not, then why use that as justification?
June 21st, 2007 at 11:58 pm
stuey Says:
June 21st, 2007 at 10:37 pm
so JH, if the Greens “hold power� how come all the other things we support are not law? How come only a handful of things we support have been accepted by Labour?
……….
You may have a point there but, for instance today (from the Herald):
Support lacking to scrap tax break for landlords [Dr Cullen spoke on RNZ of the “difficulty of the MMP environment”]
However, even outside National, Dr Cullen’s efforts to explore ring-fencing appear to lack support.
United Future leader Peter Dunne said he was “far from convinced” of its merits.
New Zealand First leader Winston Peters said he had not discussed the matter with Dr Cullen yet, but in principle his party was not generally in favour of more taxation.
Peter Dunne and Winston Peters are ounce wieghts in this case.
BTW
This:
The Green Party, through its Charter and its constitution, acknowledges the indigenous language version of Te Tiriti as the legitimate text of an agreement that described the rights and responsibilities of hapu and the Crown, and which:
1. gave the Crown the right to kawanatanga,
2. confirmed the chiefs’ tino rangatiratanga,
3. gave Mäori the individual rights of British people, and
4. confirmed their religious, spiritual and customary rights. conflicts
conflicts with this:
There are concerns that access to conservation land, waterways and the coast is being made difficult for the general public. The Green Party supports public access to Conservation Estates and will:
jh
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:39 am
Any thoughts?
Yeah: looked at s268 of the Electoral Act recently?
While I support the thrust of the bill, Bradford either needs to convince a lot more politcians, or rewrite it to allow for a referendum.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:54 am
jh: Reaching decisions people “own� is a second best to “aggregating information and reaching a rational decision about what we should do�, IMHO.
Contrary to your insinutation, I’m all for rationality, and I work hard at it. But I also think that people are entitled to make mistakes, and that their agency, rather than just rational agency, should be respected.
Believing otherwise takes us straight to hell, via Kant, Rousseau, Marx, Stalin and Mao.
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:03 am
Sue seems to have overlooked the fact that in 2004 the Youth Parliament voted to lower the age of majority to 18. Why lower the voting age to 16 and leave the age of majority at 20? Surely if 16 year olds are mature and responsible enough to vote in an election then they must be mature and responsible enough to pay their own debts instead of passing the buck to mummy and daddy. This is key to dealing with the boy-racer problem. Compulsory third-party insurance wont solve that problem cos mummy or daddy have already registered the car in their name to so darling little diddums doesn’t have to pay youth rates for the compulsory insurance demanded by the finance company.
Vote 16 panders to the “I know my rights” generation. Majority 16 would acheive Sue’s objective of promoting civic responsibility.
June 22nd, 2007 at 6:17 am
yes there are many young people with political views, but elections come around every three years so your next chance will be around soon enough. Also, I agree with the posts above regarding the disparity between what is forbidden until you turn eighteen and what is proposed to be given before that time. i think we should keep the age at 18, if a young person is not trusted to do all those things then why should they be trusted to help decide our nations future? And while many 16- and 17 yr olds do have jobs and pay tax, many do not, and you don’t have to be a voter to go talk to your local MP about youth issues. While the young people may not be able to vote in the upcoming election, be assured that they will remember how they were treated by said MP, and that will have plenty of influence on how they vote in the future.
June 22nd, 2007 at 6:44 am
Once Bradford’s got 16-year-olds the vote, she can move on to bring 16-year-olds further into the adult world with a bill to take their crimes out of the jurisdiction of the Youth Court and into the jurisdiction of the adult criminal system.
And as Gerrit’s pointed out, she could also try convincing her colleagues to trust 16-year-olds to buy the lunch they want at the school shop - or is electing a govt something less significant than buying a pie?
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:56 am
idiot/savant said: Yeah: looked at s268 of the Electoral Act recently? While I support the thrust of the bill, Bradford either needs to convince a lot more politcians, or rewrite it to allow for a referendum.
Yeah, the 75% majority required by s268 is a big hurdle. The first step is to get it drawn from the ballot and enough support in Parliament to refer it to a Select Committee though - that requires just a simple majority. The issue of whether to reword the Bill to allow for a referendum can be addressed at that stage, along with public submissions on the Bill.
The irony is that 16 and 17 year olds are able to make submissions to a Select Committee, but won’t be able to vote in a referendum on whether they should have the right to vote. Reminds me of how women acquired the right to vote - they had to rely on the votes of men to allow them to vote.
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:29 am
idiot/savant Says:
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:54 am
Contrary to your insinutation, I’m all for rationality, and I work hard at it. But I also think that people are entitled to make mistakes, and that their agency, rather than just rational agency, should be respected.
Believing otherwise takes us straight to hell, via Kant, Rousseau, Marx, Stalin and Mao.
………….
Or bumbling mediocracy and wasted opportunity?
The problem is at one level a poor level of discussion in parliment (a circus) with vested interests leaning on politicians (property investors a$$$$ociation???) and the media who are in a hurry and want to make a bang, and at the other end the spead at which peoples neural connections form.
jh
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:05 am
jh: Or bumbling mediocracy and wasted opportunity?
I’d rather risk that, than the horror of “forcing people to be free”.
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:19 am
I support this ‘vote 16′ idea that Sue Bradford is promoting. It is I think, good to have these discussions, whether in a public forum or select committee.
I strongly support the ‘civics as a school subject’ idea.
As a very young child in the 40’s early 50’s I was exposed to my parents’ thoughts on the politics of the day. This included recent political history, i.e. the depression and the Labour Govt, and WW2. I have no doubt but that this climate of political interest did provide a foundation for an enquiring mind.
Today I am frequently horrified by the lack of poilitical knowledge, central and local, expressed by younger people.
Vote at 16? Maybe. Learn about basic politics? Definitely. Joy.
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:34 am
jh said..
“..How old was Sue when she was a member of the Progresive Youth Movement?
They held a march to the police station chanting…
:“Take a walk, come on down, and see the pigs that run our townâ€?…”
(aahh!!..the classics..!..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:44 am
JH said the reasons for S59 repeal “nor were the assumptions backed up by the most extensive, up to date and comprehensive studies”.
in your opinion!
Admit it, you have no evidence for this statement, beyond a single newspaper story in the Herald about an unpublished study that was taken out of context and the findings distorted.
IMHO, you have no concept of what scientific means and you will cherry pick anything that backs your case and promote it most repetively.
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:49 am
Not being a voter myself, I don’t care much, but I recall years ago, during a furore over the supposedly confusing instructions on ballot papers, Bob Jones suggested making the instructions more difficult, in order to test whether the voter had the intelligence to vote. This is obviously silly as testing comprehension of filling in forms isn’t very related to understanding politics, but what about abandoning the voting age all together and replacing it with a simple political/historical/economics quiz?
I would be especially fun watching would-be politicians turn up to vote and failing the test.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Stuey, JH
The best thing is to ignore the S59 arguments and content for now. The experiment is on, the victims have yet to be found. In another year or so we’ll be looking at an election and the argument is likely to be rejoined in various forms with a variety of new evidence to hand. The police will be competent to assume the duties assigned them by parliament or not. There is NO point in belaboring this any more until it generates some new issues.
I am far more likely to be brought up for assault if I were to catch some of our pollies in a dark alley… like say… Bill English - “but if we change the preferential treatment for landlords property values might go down” - or Peter the overdunne’s inability to see any reason to do anything. Either or both together.
Government is missing a bet here. Shift the bracket edges to make it revenue neutral as a change. One has to wonder sometimes, if there are as many working brain cells in our parliament as there are members of it.
respectfully
BJ
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:35 pm
albeniz says that 16 year olds are taxed at a minors rate.
That is incorrect. If a 16 year old is in paid enployment, they pay the same tax rate as any other person on the same wage.
You can get a Child Rebate if you are under 19 years old, attend school and you earned a salary or wage. The rebate is not automatic, you have to apply for it. The Child rebate applies to 18 year olds, who are also adults for the purposes of voting.
What is most different is that 16 years olds are paid less - Youth rates - but still expected to pay the same tax and understand the rebate rules if the want one.
The age rules around voting, minimum pay rates, tax and rebates are entirely inconsistent with each other. On balance I think they penalise young people rather than support them.
Metiria
June 22nd, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Stuey:
JH said ….. “nor were the assumptions backed up by the most extensive, up to date and comprehensive studiesâ€?. >>>>>>
http://psych.wisc.edu/moffitt/DMHDRS1.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunedin_Longitudinal_Study
…………
Stuey: IMHO, you have no concept of what scientific means and you will cherry pick anything that backs your case and promote it most repetively.
……………
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Method
Note: when Sue B was presented with Dr Millichamps findings she tried to shoot the messenger (questioned her motives). [filtering> lack of objectivity— cherry picking]
jh
June 22nd, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Its on wikipedia so it MUST be true…
June 22nd, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Wikipaedia was tested for accuracy and compared favourably with britanica. They also tried putting in false entries and they were corrected quite quickly.
http://www.cavalierdaily.com/CVarticle.asp?ID=28031&pid=1489
It comes down to the concensus amongst social scientists issue, who do we believe… etc.
jh
June 22nd, 2007 at 4:47 pm
I try not to rely on any encylcopedia, much better to get as close to the source of information as possible. It’s basically what everyone believes to be true, if it was around a few hundred years ago then galileo would have been banned for editing the “geocentrism and heliocentrism” page. Whenever anyone uses the phrase “everyone knows such-and-such” I automatically become suspicious. Wikipedia, and thus pretty much all other wiki which aren’t restricted to those who are knowledgable on the subjects in question, are basically an embodiment of that phrase.
June 22nd, 2007 at 5:31 pm
davey, have a look on http://www.otago.ac.nz, the study will probaly be on there or in some reputable publication.
from what i recal the study was the first to seperate multiple forms of punishment and found that severe punishment and sexual assult, etc were indeed harmful to children. the study also found that in comparison to children who received no physical punishment the children who recieved light and moderate punishment, as the vast majority did, showed no negitive signs and in many cases acculy turned out better.
although ad hominem is not a valid form of arguement it can at times have relivance, particuly in application to Sue who seems to care more about self promotion than about her party or New Zealand. if Sues mission of self promotion continues, as it likley will, i may find national a better alternitive for my vote than the green party of which i am a member.
i am 18, i am doing a double major of which one is politics, i know many people my age, above and below, many 18 year olds dont know anything about politics and vote only in relation to the student and tax policys they recieve through the media, they show no interest past that, or often even up to that. below 18 the interest dies out very quickly, most of the younger people i work with cant even drag themselves to work or school because there too hung over from the previous night, at 16 people can hardly be trusted to have that much responsibility, the repeal s59 bill and the whole ‘me generation’ thing just make it worse.
im not saying all younger people are like that, for example i know two 15 year olds who i work with who in their knowledge of politics, etc could probally surpass some politicians, but the vast majority cannot be trusted with such responsibility. it is unfortunate but to stop the problems that would be introduced by the majority of the 16 and 17 year olds the few people who would do good must be disallowed from voting also.
i would support the civic education quite strongly though, but then again i would support the cane in schools aswel. most people in that age group just arnt responsible enough, there will always be exeptions though, but no practical way to give them what they deserve.
also, something that just came to mind; txt language in ncea? NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO! what is happening to this country? some sort of perverted liberalism gone to far?
Sapient
June 22nd, 2007 at 5:49 pm
# albeniz Says:
June 21st, 2007 at 11:21 pm
> How come the party I voted for doesn’t even seem to be able to get any of these things into the media for long enough to overshadow the hugely damaging coverage of Sue bradford’s social fiddling? All of those things are the reason I supported green
Good question. How come none of the six climate-change related members bills the Green Party put in the ballot in the last year got anywhere near as much media attention as this bill has? How come the bill to ban battery hen farming that Sue Kedgley submitted a few years ago didn’t get a lot of media attention?
Smoe of the issues that Stuey mentioned and Albeniz was referring to cannot be covered in a member’s bill because they would, in one way or another, affect the government accounts (if you submit a member’s bill that does that, the clerk of the house will reject it). And there are plenty of ecological issues that I think it would be worth having member’s bills on, that I’m not aware of the Green MPs submitting bills on. But I’m also aware that the ecological bills that they have submitted haven’t got much media coverage, so there are probably others that I don’t know about.
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:19 pm
metiria corrected me… thanks. I had a feeling i was making that bit up but I’m glad it’s the only hole anyone’s pointed out so far.
Kahikatea commented on something I said too.
Why do we only see successful attempts at law changes as the measure of a party making a difference in parliament?
Why do we expect that every item on our agenda be addressed and acknowledged all at once.
I’m aware that there are pressing issues that require soon looking (sorry lost grammar for a sec) I don’t think lowering the voting age is one of these.
What we need to see is Green MPs getting into the news and looking rational, sensible, and still slightly exciting (Like Nandor did tonight) and crowing about all aspects of green policy to remind people that green is a voice worth keeping in parliament for another term.
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:23 pm
what green MPs don’t need to do is push their luck with public opinion
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:00 pm
People bemoan the lack of responsibility shown by young people. Well it’s no flamin surprise given the vitriolic angst expressed against the idea of them voting.
Who cares if they make half-baked decisions about who to vote for? Hell they’re only human … and what makes us so perfectly informed in comparison? I though that a large percentage of voters don’t make up their mind until they get into the polling booth.
Ultimately the whole debate in couched in terms of such arrogance that it makes me ashamed to call myself a NZer. Time to apply for that Swedish passport.
Vote and let vote.
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:41 pm
“As a mother of a 16-year-old, I would have to say most 16-years-old have enough on their plate with their education and social life than to start having to worry about adult stuff.�
As a 16-year-old I would have to say, yeah right.
I’ve spent the last five years or so grinding my teeth at politicians and others dragging their feet on issues such as peak oil, sustainability and global warming - issues that will probably affect my generation considerably more than theirs. This is my future, my peers’ future, my generation’s future that they’re effectively throwing away and we have no say in the matter!
I care about my future. According to the law, however, I may be old enough to care, but I’m too young to have a say.
People my age should be aware of what’s going on around us. It’s only a small step from being aware to forming opinions and, dare I say it, voting - it’s not as if being allowed to vote is a great burden. If you don’t feel ready to vote, don’t vote - it’s as simple as that.
Having seen some of the vitriol people are spouting in this debate I just about think this country needs a Teenage Anti-Defamation League or something. Seriously.
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Hi Tammy - despite the best efforts of oldies such as myself, the
Vote 16 campaign is doomed to fail unless articulate young people, such as yourself, front the bill. I’d suggest that you email your contact details to Sue Bradford at: sue.bradford@parliament.govt.nz
It’s important that you are heard!
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:36 pm
# tammy91 Says:
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:41 pm
> it’s not as if being allowed to vote is a great burden. If you don’t feel ready to vote, don’t vote - it’s as simple as that.
The proportion of 18 year-olds who vote is already reasonably low, and its not until the age of about 30 that it gets anywhere near the average. Based on this, I suspect the proportion of 16 year-olds who would vote would be even lower, and that people are instinctively following Tammy’s advice of ‘if you don’t feel ready to vote, don’t vote’.
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:47 pm
there are always exceptions to the rule such as yourself Tammy
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:49 pm
# albeniz Says:
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:19 pm
> Why do we only see successful attempts at law changes as the measure of a party making a difference in parliament?
I agree with you there. Marilyn Waring’s 1984 private member’s bill to ban nuclear ship visits had a big symbolic effect even though it didn’t pass. I would like to ee the Green MPs make more use of private member’s bills to draw attention to issues that aren’t getting enough attention. For instance, at the last election they told us that 95% of our lowland rivers are too contaminated to swim in. It should be possible to craft a member’s bill to address that problem.
I do get the impression that they’re too keen to introduce member’s bills that have a good chance of getting lots of cross-party support. Then again, this may be because they’re concerned that the ones that don’t get cross-party support also won’t get any media attention, and you have to have one or the other for it to achieve something.
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Kahikatea (what a cool tree by the way)
Rodney hide kept ACT in the news for years by digging dirt. I know it didn’t really work for him.
Ron Mark made good press for NZFirst by sounding like he was the man to ask about defence.
Do green MPs even need to submit members bills to get noticed. they just have to sound intelligent and make themselves worth talking too (by the media) on current issues. It’s number building time as far as I’m concerned, not lawchanging time.
June 23rd, 2007 at 12:00 am
stu & tammy91,
You both seem surprised at the vitriolic angst directed at teenagers. Last month’s renewal of the condemnation of boy-racer’s should have prepared you for this attitude my generation. My generation were the young drivers of the 1970’s and 1980’s and we were far more deadly than today’s young drivers, yet as middle aged drivers we are no better than the middle aged drivers of the 70’s and 80’s. That hardly qualifies us to pass judgement on today’s young drivers yet it’s my generation that want to crush the boy-racer’s cars. I think they’re just jealous because we didn’t have access to cheap jap imports when we were young. And that is probably the motivation for this latest outburst - why should they have something we weren’t allowed to have?
There again, they might really be engaging in self-criticism, remembering what absolute immature brats they were at your age.
June 23rd, 2007 at 12:21 am
After reading some of the arguments for and against, I’v changed my mind, I think the age should be lowered to 18. To paraphrase one argument made on another site, yes 16- and 17-yr olds do stupid things, but so do 20- and 30-yr olds.
June 23rd, 2007 at 12:22 am
Whoops, typo there. Make that lowered to 16.
June 23rd, 2007 at 1:01 am
i shall change my vote, to pro-16.
by allowing 16 year olds to vote we allow them to better shape the future of which they will be a part, i like that. so long as the civics education is good and the teaching non-partisan then we may end up with the most politicly and civicly aware population yet. sure there will be idiots who vote for the first party on the form but there are many like that in the elder groups too. liberty for all, atleast all over 16.
but where will this stop? if the voting age is lowered to 16 it will encourage politicians to try and gain more of the youth vote, alot of the promises may not help NZ in the long run, but i spose alot dont at the moment anyhow. my greatist concern though is that if the age is lowered, other ages will be lowered accordingly, the alcohol age, tabacco age and other such marks. is that realy such a bad thing though? i think so, but when you think about it alot of them already drink and smoke to excess, all the lowering of the ages would do is increase the availability to lower age groups, the tabacco companies will be happy. another thing, do we really want 16 year old prostitutes? i spose it means they wont have to scrounge off their parents though, besides alot probaly do it already, i know afew.
i am for extending the right to vote to those of younger years but i am not for the run away ‘café pour les enfants’ (’coffee for the kids’) effect that it will have on our policy and society. in short, unless there is some way to prevent this ‘coffee for the kids’ effect, i see the limit of 18 to be the most sensible approach.
Sapient
June 23rd, 2007 at 1:10 am
the civics education, reguardless of the age being dropped, is something that i feel would benifit our society as a whole, especialy as those who receive that education become older, so long as that education is non-partisan and of high quality. prehaps some decent english lessons too, because that street talk is appaling.
Sapient
June 23rd, 2007 at 1:22 am
Vote 16 is the perfect example of a political hobby-horse. Vote16 attempts to reduce the age at which a child becomes an adult for just one single activity. Is there any logical reason why a person is legally mature enough to vote and consent to sex at 16, while they are not considered mature enough to obtain loans or hire purchase (Minors’ Contracts Act) or alcohol or tobacco until they are 18. Most stupidly they are mature enough to play pokies in a pub when they are 18 but they have to be 20 to play exactly the same poker machine in a Casino.
Most perversly, if 16 year olds video their sexual exploits they will have to wait till they are 18 before they can legally watch themselves on tape. Assuming that they haven’t broken child pornography laws by filming themselves in the first place.
For these reason’s Sue’s Bill is a half-baked idea. Replace it with a new Age Of Majority Act that would terminate childhood at age 16 and give young people the full legal rights and obligations of adulthood on their 16th birthday. It won’t be any less controversial, but if it includes raising the driving age to 16 then it will have much greater public asseptance. Bus fares and other child/adult prices should also be included in the new Age Of Majority Act, since this is another often contentious area.
June 23rd, 2007 at 1:36 am
albeniz: what green MPs don’t need to do is push their luck with public opinion
Why not? To point out the obvious, the Greens are a niche party. They are not aiming for mass support (well, not yet). Instead, they are trying to appeal to those who care about their pet issues, as well as spread their ideas so that more people care about them. From a purely numerical perspective, provided they can obtain the support of 5% of the electorate, the other 95% can go to hell (in fact they want to cast their net wider, but the broad point remains: they are not trying to appeal to the sort of person who would vote National - and if they were, they wouldn’t be a Green party).
So, if “pushing their luck” with majority public opinion broadens their support base, or expands the wider foothold green ideas have in other parties, it is worth doing.
June 23rd, 2007 at 1:42 am
Kahikatea: How come none of the six climate-change related members bills the Green Party put in the ballot in the last year got anywhere near as much media attention as this bill has? How come the bill to ban battery hen farming that Sue Kedgley submitted a few years ago didn’t get a lot of media attention?
Because some things capture the public mind, and some things don’t. Lowering the voting age captures the public mind because it initially seems outrageous, and then if you’re anything other than a mindless reactionary, the moment you start seriously thinking about it you see that there’s a case - and so people talk about it. The climate change six pack OTOH was mostly just lost in the noise, regardless of its merits (or otherwise, looking at some of the bills).
June 23rd, 2007 at 2:05 am
idiot/savant,
If they tried to appeal to the sort of person who would vote National they would still be A green party, one with a right-wing social agenda. They just wouldn’t be THE Green Party, with it’s left-wing social agenda.
Your point is very relevant to the Green party and to the question that albinez raised but is irrelevant to green issues which would be just as important if they were tackled within a free-market framework. They may or may not produce effective solutions within that framework but a right-wing green party would still be as essential as the left-wing Greens when it comes to influencing the political majors and raising the public consciousness on environmental issues. I think if there were two such parties, as long as they avoided attacking each other they would be much more than twice as effective at putting the environment on the political agenda because the majors hate fighting on two fronts and will bend over backwards try and grab both green votes instead of their current dimissiveness of The Greens as a single minority, and one that can be marginalised with the label “loopy-lefties”.
June 23rd, 2007 at 2:42 am
There’s the “public mind”, and then there’s the press. The Herald loves to run articles about Sue’s social legislation, because gets their readers exercised. They are not so keen on climate-change bills because they are fundamentally hostile to these issues getting an airing unless they absolutely have to.
I think Sue’s bill is great (I don’t have a strong opinion on lowering the voting age, but public debate on the issue is a good thing). On the other hand, I’m frustrated that the general public gets an unbalanced impression of the work of the Green MPs, because of the more important but less sexy nature of the issues that don’t get picked up much by the media. The problem here is that the people setting the public agenda are not necessarily our friends. We need to be inventive to break out of the strait-jacket.
Albeniz : It’s number building time as far as I’m concerned, not lawchanging time.
I disagree. People have no business being in parliament if they are not interested in changing laws — technically that’s what they are there for. And even if most of the private members’ bills get junked, it’s pretty good practice!
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:54 am
But alistair… If you don’t have the numbers how can you expect to change the law.
I think that mentality is illogically impatient. If you consider that for a party with barely 5 percent of the vote the greens now have two bills before select comittees then they have already done bloody well on that score. but if that success comes at the price of losing enough popular support that the party can’t make the threshold then they are serving neither themselves now their constituents. It’s like driving a car forever without servicing it. It goes out of tune and then stops working when you need it too. It’s short sighted. It’s not sustainable.
sustainable resource management in broad application. It’s what the party is about isn’t it?
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Sapient and Davey - I’m really encouraged by your change of mind on this issue.
Kevyn - thanks for your frank opinion on boyracers and the attitudes of older drivers. I was never a boy racer but neither have I ever begrudged those who are. I simply dislike dangerous driving.
Albeniz - you believe that Tammy is an “exception” to a “rule”? This attitude, however, misses the central argument behind the bill. That is, as stakeholders in society, 16 and 17 year olds have as much right to vote as you or I. Possibly more of a right as they will suffer the consequences (good or bad) for longer than we will. It’s NOT about their capacity to consider the types of issues *we* think are important. Who’s to say that their issues aren’t as important as ours?!?
Albeniz aside, I’m encouraged that the polls on the Vote16 issue seem to be heading in the right direction. The NZHerald poll from a few days ago had about 8% in favour and 92% against. However, the more recent TV3 poll is running at 12% in favour and 88% against.
Finally, I’d like to point out that one of the consequences of the baby boom will be that the “average” voter grows older in future elections. Thus the effect on voter demographics caused by lowering the voting age may be dampened out by the ageing population.
That’s something to think about for all those “chicken little” people who think that the sky will fall on our heads when the 16 and 17 years old flood the polling booths. Just consider that they’ll have to get past the queues of zimmer frames first
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:52 pm
Stu, my opinion in relationship to should the younger groups have the right to vote changed to yes, i would still however probaly oppose the second part of the bill, though only on the basis of the other legal ages.
i think that if we see the age dropped to 16 then logicaly the ages for drinking and smoking and prostitution would also decrease, althought the ages where you have responsibility for your debts, etc would probally stay in the same place.
i feel this bill would prehaps create more alcohol and addiction problems through availability of the substances, if Sue B could come up with a way to change the drinking culture that has for so long plauged NZ, the tabacco culture and eliminate the apeal of prostitution to teens then she would have my support in this bill, and probaly also my support for co-leader
i wouldint so much mind the drinking age and tabacco age to be decreased if the culture was changed, but the of prostitution i would rather have limited to 20 and over.
Sapient
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Salient - could you please explain for me what the second part of bill involves? I have to admit that I have not read the bill, only the press releases … :s
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Oops .. typo … I meant to address Sapient
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:25 pm
BTW I agree with Sapient with regards to resisting the lowering of the other age restrictions.
This should be turned into a “slippery slope” issue, whereby the lower voting age os used to justify lower age limits for other activities, such as driving, smoking etc.
June 24th, 2007 at 1:18 am
the first part of the bill adresses the civics education, which i beleive to be very much overdue and should help with NZ’s future.
the second part is what deals with the lowering of the age to 16, which is where the controversy comes into it, basicly it just substitutes “adult person” with “person of voting age” where its referanced throughout the current legislation and goes on to define a person of voting age to be of 16 years and over.
Sapient
June 24th, 2007 at 3:00 am
perhaps instead of doing that, they could just change the act which defines voting age, and change “adult person” to “person over sixteen years of age” in that act only?
June 24th, 2007 at 8:54 am
Sue Bradford must have a lot of time on her hands. While most of us work 9 hours a day just making the economic system that mankind has created go round, she is dabbling once more in social engineering. What’s that saying about “idle hands….?” What she should remember is that the voting demographics that exists right now is the one that got her into parliament in the first place albeit in a sort of round about way.
The criteria quite rightly should not be age - you get extremely knowledgeable, responsible and mature 8 year olds as well as extremely ignorant, irresponsible and immature 80 year olds. However, a line has to be drawn in the sand somewhere and it so happens that the age of 18 is mostly universally accepted as being the best dividing line between people who have those former attributes and those who don’t. Just because Austria and Brazil have lowered their voting age to 16 doesn’t make it correct. In fact Brazil can hardly be called a perfect example of a country that has good governance.
Otherwise, if age does not become a factor, then we may be forced into a qualified franchise system. Who wants to go down that path?
I vote Green every election because I care about the environment. I sold the car I had 6 years ago. I walk to work and try my best to live the “green” life. I am a conservative who believes that being green does not mean living in a realm of anarchy. Perhaps the time has come for a Conservative Green Party - one of the reasons why the Greens do not get more votes is that they are perceived as being too liberal.
June 24th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Hi March -
1. You assert that a line has to be drawn somewhere. Why?
2. The age for leaving school, paying taxes, and enlisting in the armed forces is 16. Why should not young people aged 16-17 have a say on the tax they pay and the wars this country fights?
3. The Greens’ environmental agenda has never been more strongly promoted. Some examples:
- Nandor’s waste minimisation bill
- The seven private members’ bills on different aspects of climate change
- Both coleaders have just completed a Climate Defense Tour around the entire country, holding public meetings and workshops.
- The Party has allocated large financial and volunteer resource to support the electrification of Auckland’s rail network. Leaflets were distributed at train stations around the region for weeks ahead of a large public meeting.
All these activities are promoting an environmental agenda. However, the media are not interested in these activities, because they’re seen as too technical/boring.
What we don’t need is informed people like you accepting the image of the GP that is presented on TV.
June 24th, 2007 at 11:28 am
The reason you can join the armed forces under 18 is that people over 18 are more likely to be able to make rational, informed decisions about their own futures. And if everyone did that, we wouldn’t have much of an armed forces.
No Stu what we don’t need is informed people like you passing the buck and blaming it on the media. As the old saying goes - “If the mountain won’t look at mohammed then mohammed should go stand where Abu is standing and ask Abu to stop jumping up and down so much”. If you can’t change the media (easily) and your success depends on the way they potray you, then it is your responsibility to learn how to play them.
June 24th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Oh albeniz your first comment is hilarious. You can’t be serious?!?
My comment on the media is not about passing the buck. My point was that the GP has placed environmental issues right at the top of its agenda, but this priority has not been reflected in media coverage, mainly because environmental issues do not make for polarizing sound bites.
I am convinced that the gut conservative reaction against Vote16 (which I initially had myself) will soon simmer down. Opinions will then start to change as:
1. Other MPs, such as Rodney Hide, express their support for the bill, to dilute the anti-Sue and anti-Green “shoot the messenger” opinions that are currently beingh expressed;
2. Logical and rational reasons for the change are reiterated; and
3. Intelligent and articulate young people stand up and assert their interest in democratic participation.
I’m an optimist
June 24th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
well… honestly.. I know the military can provide a great life for people, but by the time I was twenty I wasn’t going to join.
humph… it was my second statement that was meant to be hilarious
June 24th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
albinez, from stu’s response to march it’s clear GP have worked out to “play” the public. The rail electrification leaflets were handed out at train stations not at petrol stations.
There are three simple reasons why the GP will never be able to play the news media:
1. it rains in the environment (a lot)
2. it gets cold and windy in the environment (ski fields are the only part of the environment where this is chic)
3. there isn’t any environment in Auckland and if it isn’t in Auckland it just isn’t.
June 24th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
prehaps a frature in the green party would help the green cause as a whole, marcb is right that the greens are seen as too liberal, but also too left. if the green party were to split up into smaller parties then the green issues could be attacked from all corners, being much more effective and due to the changes in policy that would have to result the green parties as a whole would probaly gain a much large proportion of the votes, the problem is the green party is currently hovering quite low, if they split they wouldint have enough for votes to be in parliment next election, but following that they would likley pick up
a red-green(eco-socialism?), light blue-green(eco-liberalism) and dark blue-green(eco-capitalism) set of parties might be effective, i would be willing to start a eco-eclective party if i had 500 members :P.
eco topics just arnt hot enough, what you need is topics that lend themselves to alot of public debate and green topics tend not to do that as readily as the topics sue has chosen. short of a rubbish dump exploding or tumbling down onto peoples houses i dont think that nandors waste minimalisation bill is likley to gain much attention.
Sapient
June 24th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Kevyn and Sapient those are fantastic comments. Jolly good show.
I’d agree with Sapient about the different strands of Green and the fact that eco-topics do not capture the public attention. Hence Sue B’s bill is a welcomed diversification in the Party’s agenda.
However, if the GP is ever to get over 10%, then they’re going to have present a more coherent economic policy. Gaining credibility in this area is crucial to future success.
Which is why I’m off to Russel’s post on property taxes …
June 24th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Stu Donovan I am aware of all the good things that the GP does and I am also aware that much of this does not get covered by the media.
However, the V16 is going to be another bill that wastes the time of everyone when there are more important things to sort out - like boy racers and other irritants.
The Anti-Smacking Bill was pushed through against the majority will. Hardly a democratic outcome, whether you supported it or not. Now the V16 may end up also being pushed through in a palpably undemocratic fashion.
Now being a conservative (not capitalist), this does not frighten me in the least, as conservatives do like to act in an autocratic manner. How would the GP manage to get everyone to throw their cars away and start taking buses, trains, cycle, walking paths to work.
We all know that the majority of people could never ever give up the way of life they have now, without being forced to do so. The only way is for the GP to put a bill forward banning all private car ownership thereby forcing people to find alternative modes of transport mainly to get to work.
So here “the line in the sand” rears its head again. Where do we draw a line when a minority party and unfortunately that is what the GP is, keeps on trying to force bills through parliament against the will (as ill-informed or wrong as it may be) of the majority.
I thought that a democratic process was one where the will of the majority was expressed by its government. It does become a sort of social engineering when the will of the majority is overridden.
As for the 16/17 year old army recruit voting rights debate. How many 16 or 17 year olds are actually serving in the defence force? Not enough to warrant giving all 16/17 year olds the vote. Also giving the army the vote does not always make good sense as recruits can be manipulated to vote in a certain way. I know, I lived in a country and served as a conscript at age of 17 where we were manipulated to vote along the correct lines once we turned 18. We knew nothing about politics and frankly giving the vote to us would have been downright dangerous.
Just spotted Sapient’s post about the different hues of green. That is a thought to ponder. The GP is made up mostly of “supposedly” liberal minded people and more conservative minded people just don’t vote GP even though they may want to. I believe a new image for the GP should be created but can this be done without wholesale changes to a lot of dedicated personnel. I somehow don’t think so. Maybe the time has come for a more conservative Green Party or Environmental Party to be established or can conservatives and liberals co-exist in one party?
June 24th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
oh good old democracy. the democracy we have is representitive whcih means every so many years the people elect people whom they see to represent themselves or hold similar values, the system is normaly first past the post (such as our electorates) which allows readily for “tyranny of the majority” in that the person only needs the largest proportion of votes.
there was a man whose name i cannot remmber who awhile back remarked on the english electoral system, he said something along the lines of the english people being free only once every number of years and then when they receive that freedom what they do is pick a new dictator and again give up the freedom.
as representitive democracies go ours, as a mmp system, is one of the best, atleast in my opinion, i can think of afew improvements but it is still very hard to improve apon.
the good thing about our system is that, atleast for dirrectly elected mp’s, that if they screw up in representing the people who appointed them they are out of there by the next election.
co-existance? left can accomidate anything but right(socialism/capitalism), same with up to down(authoritarianism/liberalism) and in to out(green/eco-exploitive). conservitism seems to be almost by definition right in the middle though, prehaps it could exist along side liberalism in a highly liberal society?
i think seperate parties and seperate angles would be a good way to approach it all. the green party could form different groups within itself(akin to the rainbow greens, maori greens and young greens) which could form their own policy and put it foward to be considered by the green party as a whole and once those groups have sufficent members they could seperate :P. after all, if it would be more effective to fight the green fight on several fronts surley they should facilitate the formation of other parties which share the green ideology.
Sapient
June 24th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Stu - you can only enlist in the military at 16 to start training once you turn 17 and only with parental permission at either age. And 18 is the age for active service.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:56 am
marcb. A bill to ban car ownership would be vehemently opposed by local authorities and their ratepayers because:
1) the cost of maintaining local roads would be reduced by less than 1%
*currently total $m800, nature $m720, trucks/buses $m70, cars/vans $m7
2) road user assistance with these costs would fall by more than 60%
*currently ratepayers $m400, trucks/buses $m110, cars/vans $m290
3) a 7.5 ton bus costs 125 times more in road damage than a 1.5 ton car
*current statistics are not adequately disaggregated for trucks/buses or urban/rural local roads and nobody knows how many extra bus journeys would be needed if we had no cars so it’s not possible to make any sort of
estimate of any increase in road maintenance costs.
The $m720 nature cost refers to the cost of replacing bridge and roadway components when they reach the end of their natural life, ie how long they would retain their traffic carrying properties if there was no traffic at all or only emergency vehicle traffic. Ranges from 15 years for tarseal to 50 years for road beds to 100 years for concrete bridges and near infinity for earthworks. Nature accounts for less than half the maintenance costs on State Highways because traffic volumes are many times greater than on local roads. Nature costs are charged on a per km travelled basis, whereas vehicle damage is charged on a 3rd power axle-weight km travelled.
Michael Cullen would also be vehemently opposed. When all taxes are taken into account (which was not done in the Surface Transportation Cost Comparison study) cars provide the government with billions of dollars more than they cost the government. The same may or may not be true for society or “the community”. The problem is that while financial costs (and benefits) can be identified objectively, social costs (and benefits) are subjective. As evidenced by all the people who read that sentence and said “what benefits?”
June 25th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Kevyn, that breakdown of the inherent costs of the national road network, and losing funding for the upkeep of it, is very interesting and is something that would have to be dealt with in the future since private car ownership is probably one day going to be a thing of the past for the majority of people on earth who can presently afford a car. I couldn’t hazard a guess at the time line for that though. The fact that the Nature costs of the road network is so high probably requires that many roads may have to be left to nature or converted to natural walking areas with just rudimentary emergency or service vehicle access. Frankly though, we are probably going to eventually have to adjust to a whole new way of life. Hell, if most of the third world can live without decent roads then so can we.
We should start a post on this subject - issues to look at would be more rail and similar networks to reduce trucking. How much less fuel would need to be imported - funds from the resulting savings in foreign exchange could help keep some of the necessary roads going. We could look at all sorts of possible or probable solutions.
Getting back to the V16 debate. And in a lighter more humorous mode: since the frontal lobe and its development is a good indicator of the ability of a person to think rationally, then maybe we can give the vote to those who have a fully developed frontal lobe.
Cribbed from Wikipedia: Cognitive maturity associated with adulthood is marked by related maturation of cerebral fibers in the frontal lobes between late teenager years and early adult years.
If the rate of development and maturity period differs from person to person, then maybe we can require anyone wanting the right to vote to undergo some kind of “Frontal Lobe Test” before getting that right? This may be in the form of an actual physical test of the lobe via operation or scan, or a “Manifestation of Frontal Lobe Activity Test” similar to the old IQ (and/or an EQ) test.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:30 am
marcb, “We should start a post on this subject”
Good suggestion. If I’ve done everything right you should find an invitation to do just that at
http://petroltax.blog.net.nz/
June 27th, 2007 at 7:38 am
Thanks Kevyn, I’ll head over there this evening. It’s time for me to walk down the hill with my socks over my shoes (ice and frost seems to be the norm these winter mornings in Dunedin) to help prolong the world’s economic system’s inevitable death throes
Before I go, I would like to make one more observation on the V16 debate or any other debate for that matter. Why not trial the V16 system out first. In the next elections we can have the voting age lowered to 16 and have an independent group monitor the 16/17 age group voting trends.
If it looks like the Radical Anarchist Party or the Extreme Fascist Party would sweep to power then it may not be a very good idea
but if the voting trends are along mature sensible lines, then this age group should be given the go-ahead to vote if the majority of present voters accepts it.
There could be a clause in the bill put forward for the trial vote, stipulating that for this right to vote to continue, there would have to be a national referendum, which does not include that age group.
I do believe that parties to benefit from this age group’s voting block would be the minority parties, especially the Greens. That old Serious Party (can’t remember the first part of the name) could be resuscitated, as it would definitely benefit. We must also bear in mind that this voting block would still be very much in the minority. Anyway, just my thoughts on what could be done. This could be improved or elaborated on. Catch u later. It’s off to work for me!
June 27th, 2007 at 8:39 am
4% and goin’ down.
jh
June 27th, 2007 at 8:42 am
“There could be a clause in the bill put forward for the trial vote, stipulating that for this right to vote to continue, there would have to be a national referendum”
Is that not what they said about MMP?
We were going to have a binding referendum after a coukle of MMP elections, no?
Unless referendums are binding they are a total waste of time. Currently all referendums get the one finger “Ron Marks” salute from the party in government.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
marcb,
Slightly different link needed to get to the new post
http://petroltax.blog.net.nz/2007/6/
Its a free blog service and seems to be bit less than straight forward.
June 27th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
The McGillicuddy Serious Party, the problem with ressurecting that is a number of its members are now members of other parties, if i remmeber correctly i think Nandor was a member as was Metiria Turei, i dont think we want to loose them. they were ment to of been resurrected for the 2005 elections but nothing came of it http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0507/S00214.htm .
Sapient