Get your policies here, John
Brian Rudman adds this morning to the growing media meme that it is time National let voters know what it they are actually going to be voting for. He uses the example of the electrification of Auckland rail to build his argument. National’s transport spokesperson, Maurice Williamson has spent a lot of time declaring his absolute opposition to the regional fuel tax (which is currently needed to fund public transport investment in Auckland), while very specifically failing to mention any alternative. This is important:
The deal with the Government is that Auckland ratepayers have to pay the $495 million cost of a fleet of 35 electric trains while the Government pays for the electrification costs of the track network. Before it can begin the purchase process, ARTA and the Auckland Regional Council have to know there is a guaranteed income stream in place to pay Auckland’s share of the bills. A fuel tax, beginning at 1c a litre, would not cover the full purchase costs, but it would cover the interest on a loan.
So if National pulls the plug on the fuel tax without putting in place an alternative the trains, which suddenly lots of people need as petrol prices soar, go too.
Of course National could always borrow from the Greens’ book of good ideas. Two weeks back, co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons was making the reasonable point that with rapidly rising petrol prices sending commuters fleeing from cars onto public transport, the Government should be underwriting the whole process so new electric trains could be ordered now.
Indeed. If National is struggling to come up with policies the Greens are more than happy to lend John Key some spare ones. They all come with a good safety warranty, and I think he’ll find most of them are quite pragmatic and well tested in other countries.
June 30th, 2008 at 11:41 am
No 1c fuel tax eh…heeeeeey maybe he’s going to stop spend less money on roads/motorways and put it on public transport
June 30th, 2008 at 11:46 am
There is no point National releasing policy at this point. The public isn’t listening yet and Labour has a habit of borrowing them.
June 30th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Probably right, it just look pretty ridiculous when they attack Labour policy and then don’t even give an indication of a possible direction, let alone policy.
June 30th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Wait a sec…you want someone to steal your policies frog? How…refreshing?
June 30th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
>>you want someone to steal your policies frog
Having read a few of them, I don’t think there is much chance of that
June 30th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Stephen- the Greens don’t care who implements a good idea, so long as it’s implemented. Isn’t it lovely to see people who can be team players actually being elected?
BP, how about you explain to me what’s so objectionable about this policy, without descending into ideological rants:
http://www.greens.org.nz/node/19035
June 30th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Ari - all seems pretty sound to me.
The language used is a little…revealing. You’d be best to dump the politics of envy, and the veiled references to Zaoui.
“the sale of land to rich immigrants from having an adverse impact”
What is “rich”? Do middle class immigrants, who buy land, have an impact, or only rich pricks? If twenty poor immigrants buy more land collectively than one rich prick, is that a problem worth stating? What is an adverse impact?
June 30th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Sigh. Please release my post.
June 30th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Very magnanimous Ari, and I’m sure it’s true to a point, but if National took a few more policies, it would probably have the effect of giving Green-leaning voters less reason to vote Green, thus possibly driving them out of Parliament. Is very hard to get back in…
June 30th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
ok - have 5 mins free so…
Based on current polls (ignoring undecided and wishful thinking), National could be governing alone. With this in mind what then is the Green strategy to influence National?
As StephenR points out if National just took a few Green policies it may have teh effect of giving Green-leaning voters less reason to vote Green, thus possibly driving them out of Parliament.
So is the Green strategy to simply cannibalise Labour support with the end result is no overall impact on National as Greens just surplant Labour in the opposition role. Or do the Greens look at what policies they could develop that would allow them to work with National. I wonder if there is a real opportunity this election for the Greens (but more likely the Maori party) to have a Nixon visits China moment.
National could end being the party that is more able to put into action steps to improve New Zealand’s environment and support economic growth. I am saying this as could, maybe etc as a means to test the strategy/game theory for Greens.
Is the objective cannibalisation? or is it developing policies/positions to provide a strong negotiating position. Thinking longer term, if greens where to go into coalition with National they could be in a position to bring in some of the blue-green vote long term as well as existing support. Long term result could be a stronger and more effective green party.
So instead of making demands of National - what are the Greens willing to do to work with National. Personally I think on improving the environment there is a much lesser step gap between some greens and people who support Act. Now that could be a third scenario, an Act/Green tie up on environment issues (with an agree to disagree perspective on some economic growth views).
June 30th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
>>>>National could end being the party that is more able to put into action steps to improve New Zealand’s environment and support economic growth. I am saying this as could, maybe etc as a means to test the strategy/game theory for Greens.
I think that this is a very good observation. In order to survive, the Greens need to shake off the ‘Left of Labour’ tag to get a more influential stance in the political scene – they may even, in future, become the main party for the country! I believe that the emphasis needs to be placed on economic reform to include green (environmental) ideals, and I don’t believe that this need be any more incompatible with the traditional right of centre politics than it would be with those left of centre. As Nandor has said: Green thinking is neither (traditionally) left or right.
June 30th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Stephen- I don’t think National could ever edge the Green Party out of Parliament on its own. National cannot practically take on Green policies, because even if they adopt the same policies as the Green party, they’re not exactly as committed to them. That’s even ignoring the likely backlash from a large proportion of their base if they actually start to get serious about environmental issues. Keep in mind National relies heavily on the rural vote, and Green policies are more popular in big cities. If Labour can flop an emissions trading scheme after announcing it wants to go carbon-neutral, how badly do you think National would do?
Also, keep in mind that we’ve seen that even when Labour and National do adopt Green policies, they divorce them from a lot of their context, and thus co-operation with the Green Party to implement them is practically a must if they want them to have an actual impact. Labour and National still seem unable to divorce themselves from this concept of endless material growth, even though we only have one planet for the foreseeable future, and it only has so much space and resources for us to use.
WWHS- Firstly, I think if National ends up with the power to govern alone, it will most likely simply ignore coalition partners altogether. It does not play nicely in a team in general. If it ends up needing Act, there’s certainly room to negotiate on things like privacy rights. Now and then Act does actually live up to its slogan and act as a libertarian party on social issues. Secondly, the Greens could substitute in for other coalition parties and have some influence on environmental policy- and National will need to pass at least some during the next term if it is in government, because there are urgent problems with our lakes, impending climate change, etc… it will not get away with inaction if it wants a second term.
I think it’s a mistake to view wanting action on Green policies as making demands. Ultimately supporting a larger party is about finding some common ground, and trading off a few policies that don’t stray too far from that. The Greens will try and fit as much into that common ground as they can, because that’s just how the Party works.
BP- Keeping in mind that the Greens dislike people owning more land than they will put to practical use, I don’t see why we shouldn’t limit the rich from owning land just to monopolise the view.
You call it politics of envy, we call it the reality of scarcity- if you believe that people have a right to a certain minimum quality of living, (you’ve said you believe in similar things in the past, so long as people have an incentive to be productive) you have to end up reigning in the rich in our current society, as there are too many people to allow a few people to consume practically any resource they wish to. Personally speaking, I don’t have a problem with rich people owning things so long as they keep them useful to the community and do not squander them. There is no question that some of the cases of rich “investors” buying land in our country has been on the squandering side.
As for veiled references to Zaoui- you’re still in spin mode. The Greens don’t release their policy for spin. These are issues that the Zaoui case raised that they feel need fixing.
June 30th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
But John Key does have policies.
From the johnkey.co.nz site under the heading “On crime and what National will do about it”
John says, “National’s going to stop all the navel gazing … we’re going to get on and tackle some of the hard problems, deal with some urgency, do it with a plan and actually make a difference.”
Amazing level of detail about “what National will do about it”.
June 30th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
>>Keeping in mind that the Greens dislike people owning more land than they will put to practical use
Oh please. It is politics of envy.
So all Greens live in tiny apartments in tower blocks, do they? Technically, that would be the green-est thing to do in terms of practical use, and make the least impact on land.
We don’t have a land scarcity issue in NZ. We occupy less than 5% of it.
>>so long as they keep them useful to the community and do not squander them
Why don’t you apply that condition to poor people? Collectively, there are enough beneficiaries squandering opportunity, wealth and resources.
>>consume practically any resource they wish to
It’s this strange left thinking that because resources aren’t infinite, therefore they must be scarce. The reality is that we have plenty of resources in this country, and we will create plenty of new value, and plenty of efficiencies. We need you lot to get out of the way, please.
>>Zaoui case raised that they feel need fixing
Agreed. We need to do more to keep certain people out.
June 30th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Probably right with ’stealing’ policies Ari. As an aside we saw what happened when Brash took just a few ACT policies last election, and ACT haven’t been able to climb out of that hole since.
June 30th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Thank you Ari - I was pleasantly surprised by the Green’s immigration policy. Very sensible with environmental factors playing a key (no pun intended) role, I’d say. Of course, one could argue that we have a moral obligation , in the case of environmental refugees, at least, - and there are likely to be huge numbers if the world climate goes berserk. The argument takes the view that countries (including little ol’ New Zealand) that have benefited most from the technological developments of the 19th and 20th Centuries should be obliged to open their doors to refugees from those countries that have suffered at their expense. The result would probably not be very nice, but it is a reasonable moral position. See:
Immigration: The Environmentalist’s Dilemma
June 30th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Hi Ari - nice thoughts but by your logic you condemn the Greens to the opposition benches and allow National to take action to develop a strong blue-green body (they may not do this, but your argument allows them to).
If National takes up the option of developing strong blue-green credentials where does that leave the green party?
Don’t underestimate National to do this. There is some very smart MP’s for example Craig Foss (let alone John Key) who have spent a lifetime dealing with the value of options.
So on this basis what then is the strategy for the Greens. Do green voters allow National to exercise the option and the potentially loose a significant potential/existing voter base, or do Greens seek to work with National to reduce the value of the option to National?
Now the Greens have been allowing Labour to exercise this option for the last 9 years for little if any return. That provides a past track record for the status quo of not working for national. On an analysis I would say the upside is with Greens working with National, the downside risks would be to maintain status quo or seek to cannibalise labour.
The risks of seeking to cannibalise labour are that, Labour has more organisation, power and money and they would fight for survival. Sure this could harm Labour but more likely Labour would be the grouping standing at the end.
So Ari the final question for the Greens is starting to look like - do you want to influence environmental policy or are you in the mood to scrap with Labour?
June 30th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
OOPs — the link for immigration problems is
http://blogs.salon.com/0002007/2006/04/24.html#a1506
Sorry
June 30th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Don’t you love these people who disingenuously claim the public isn’t listening yet? The public listen to people they respect and regard. They listen to opinion leaders. If opinion leaders have no idea what National’s policies are, then the public have no way of knowing whether or not they are any good. National is an opinion leader for a small group of people. Most voters like to hear what more independent people think…..and in leaving the policy until the last minute, the aim is to frustrate and impede the scrutiny of their policy that allows opinion leaders to investigate, understand policy and say what they think……and lead opinion.
Clearly the strategy of National IS to frustrate the timely development of any independent view of their policy.
They don’t want to “peak too early”……a euphemism for what happens when people finally learn what you’re all about and decide don’t like you.
June 30th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
>>euphemism for what happens when people finally learn what you’re all about and decide don’t like you.
So you’re implying that when people do hear Nationals policy before the election, which they will, and they do like it, they will still vote for it?
The strategy is simple. Talk when the people you need to reach are listening. It is more effective, and more cost effective. The people National need to reach aren’t political groupies, and most people have a very short attention span, especially when it comes to politics.
June 30th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
typo
and they do NOT like it, they will still vote for it?
June 30th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
I must confess that’s the only reason I want it at this particular time. The thing is, the ‘groupies/junkies’ might have too much time to pick particular policy apart if policies are released too far out..? I agree that people have a short memory, so you really need big ones close to the election, so people go to the polls with those still ringing in their heads.
July 1st, 2008 at 5:15 am
BP- Unlike the wealthy, the poor only squander their own opportunities. When the rich waste, they can do so with far more resources. When the poor are “wasteful”, they only hurt themselves. To grossly generalise, when the rich are wasteful, they deny everyone else the resources they are polluting/exploiting/squandering. The Greens are concerned that resources are available to future generations. Given that resources are disproportionately wasted and polluted by the rich, of course it seems like “politics of envy”. That’s because it involves people limiting their consumption, and if there’s one thing that annoys the economic liberalists, it’s limits on consumption. There are only so many resources to go around. Why do we need to put so much burden on them for so few people? The economy would be more productive overall if we stopped focusing on enrichening the people who already have money, and instead focused on providing people with what they need. And if we can do that without hard and fast rules- so much the better. But how do you stop Shania and her friends from owning all the South Island stations without some sort of interference?
If we can maintain a sustainable and sufficient living standard in apartment tower blocks, I certainly wouldn’t mind, BP. Someone has to work the land though.
I think we’ll find that in the long-term the solution will be a gradual and deliberate population decline- it’s much easier for individuals to be wealthy when there are fewer mouths to feed, although we’ll need to be a lot more efficient to maintain our standard of living with, say, six times less people.
WWHS- I still think you’re looking at this in the wrong way. What do National have to gain from working with the Greens? Well, National is positioning itself as Labour-light. They have little environmental credibility, (listen to Gerry Brownlee go on about coal, for instance) there is uncertainty that they have any incentive to retain Labour’s policies that people are so keen on after the election, Bill English could be waiting for a chance to pull a Brutus on Key’s Caeser, and their only plans on social policies are to lock up more crims, oh, and send our kids to boot camp for good measure. A pragmatic voice from the left in a swing agreement for their more moderate policies (for instance, their education, infrastructure, energy, and environmental policies could really benefit from such an agreement if there was some good give and take from both sides) would actually give National credibility as a centrist party- which is what they’ve run as under both John Key and Don Brash.
There’s also a real benefit in working with the Greens that if Labour flops the ETS entirely and National wins the election, National will have to pass something similar in their first term if they don’t want to be booed out of office. If National doesn’t quite have a majority on its own, it could look to the Greens for support on an ETS, and then pass a bill stronger than they’d usually get away with and blame it on us
But what I doubt we’ll see is a “compromise”. The Greens have balanced their principles with their pragmatism by not voting for any bill that they don’t believe leaves the country better off after it recieves assent. Rather, they will identify areas (and there won’t be as many as with Labour) where they could support National on principle and work from there. Remember, on purely economic issues, the Greens are actually completely agnostic- it’s just that so much economics has social and environmental effects.
July 1st, 2008 at 8:15 am
>>Unlike the wealthy, the poor only squander their own opportunities.
Incorrect. If they take more in benefits than they pay out in tax, they can squander the value created by others.
>> To grossly generalise, when the rich are wasteful, they deny everyone else the resources they are polluting/exploiting/squandering.
Once again, you assume a scarcity of resources. We have plenty of resources, as is obvious by the fact everyone is housed, clothed, fed and educated.
Some resources may be squandered, but they are just as likely squandered by the poor as the rich. The poor make up a much bigger sector of the community than the rich, after all.
>> The economy would be more productive overall if we stopped focusing on enrichening the people who already have money, and instead focused on providing people with what they need.
Incorrect. If you take resources from the people who know how to use them, and hand them to people who don’t, we all become poorer. Many of the rich are rich for a reason - they are competent, skilled and know how to create real value. Many people are poor because they do not.
>> But how do you stop Shania and her friends from owning all the South Island stations without some sort of interference?
Why should we stop Shania owning South Island stations? What’s the difference if an Aucklander owns one? Does Shania take the land away? Do we have a scarcity of land? Selling land to foreigners is free money - in terms of foreign exchange earnings.
>> I think we’ll find that in the long-term the solution will be a gradual and deliberate population decline- it’s much easier for individuals to be wealthy when there are fewer mouths to feed, although we’ll need to be a lot more efficient to maintain our standard of living with, say, six times less people.
New Zealand is underpopulated. I think you’re taking the problems of, say, the UK (caused, incidentally, by loose multi-culturalism and left wing immigration policy) and pretending they are our own. They are not.
Your argument is flawed because you assume more scarcity than exists.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:04 am
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
>
>>There are only so many resources to go around. Why do we need to put so much burden on them for so few people? The economy would be more productive overall if we stopped focusing on enrichening the people who already have money, and instead focused on providing people with what they need. And if we can do that without hard and fast rules- so much the better. But how do you stop Shania and her friends from owning all the South Island stations without some sort of interference?
>
Is there a problem with Shania (and her friends) owning SOuth ISland stations? She seems to have invested in some very good improvements to the land she bought, and, as far as I can see, isn’t doing anything to harm the environment or damage the land for future generations.
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
July 1st, 2008 at 11:20 am
O F G S
>
>>we’ll need to be a lot more efficient to maintain our standard of living with, say, six times less people.
Erm, six times anything is more than you start with, if you take away that number from the first number you have a negative number. Maintaining the standard of living for -n*5 is rather simple really - you leave them to rot and return their elements to the land.
>
>>their (NAtional’s) only plans on social policies are to lock up more crims, oh, and send our kids to boot camp for good measure.
And the problem with a significant deterrant against crime is? I lived for a couple of years in Riyadh in Saudi Arabia. At the end of my contract I went looking for the keys to the house to hand them back in - it took ages to find them as they hadn’t needed to be used! Thast is a country where people walk down ‘dark alleyways’ in the ‘worst parts of town’ secure in the knowledge that their probobility of being robbed, assaulted, raped or otherwise interfeared with are the same as the probability of a snowball in my garden surviving the spring! Zero tolerance and crowded gaols turned New York City into a place that feels, and generaly is, safe. Perhaps it’s time to try that experiment in New Zealand as the current one ain’t working!
>
>>Remember, on purely economic issues, the Greens are actually completely agnostic- it’s just that so much economics has social and environmental effects.
Bullsh1t wrapped in obfuscation. There can never be any separation of economics and social wellbeing. They are totally interrelated, ergo, only economic policies that carry forward what the greens see as good for society can be supported by them.
Here you have declared your claim to the left, and stated it perfectly. If you had expressed the conviction that you could only support policies that had a positive impact on environmental sustainability you would have had my respect for holding to the principles embodied in the verb ‘green’; however, you couldn’t do that as socialism rules your heart, not environmentalism.
As for the rest of your drivel - I hoist the Blue Peter to my mast.
July 2nd, 2008 at 2:27 am
Where does Rudman get the idea that rapidly rising petrol prices are sending commuters fleeing from cars onto public transport? If 10% of Wellington motorway commuters fled to PT it would create a 66% increase in train passengers. Has that happened? In fact what has been the increase in train passengers since fuel prices started rising eight years ago?
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:41 am
“Where does Rudman get the idea that rapidly rising petrol prices are sending commuters fleeing from cars onto public transport? If 10% of Wellington motorway commuters fled to PT it would create a 66% increase in train passengers. Has that happened? In fact what has been the increase in train passengers since fuel prices started rising eight years ago?”
Well, in Auckland, we have had 15% increases year on year since 2007, with a 30% increase in 2006 (I apologise for mistyping my figures on the other thread). This has been from quite a low base though.
Fleeing would probably be the wrong term to use, but you cannot dispute that there have been enough increases in public transport (especially rail) use over the last few years that have started to put a strain on rail networks throughout Australasia - most passenger level increases have been above what was expected and has meant that existing rolling stock is struggling to cope.
July 16th, 2008 at 7:28 am
I still don’t see why electric trains are such a priority when we are facing a steady decline in the percentage of electricity we generate from ‘green’ sources.
No point having a fleet of electric trains when the power is generated at the Huntly power station.
July 16th, 2008 at 8:36 am
Check out the wind and geothermal plants being built…
July 16th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Heh, timely! http://stuff.co.nz/4619586a13.html