So, the 2014 election results are in, with an emphatic win for National. Six years into his Prime Ministership, and having just been re-elected for a third term, John Key has achieved what very few NZ politicians have done before him; he remains trusted, respected, admired and even liked by a large proportion of the public.
Transport
As regular readers of the blog will have gathered, we consider National’s policies on transport, urban issues and climate change to be outdated and misguided. From that perspective, their election win is unfortunate, but transport doesn’t seem to get a lot of discussion at (central government) election time; urban issues and climate change are even more minor.
And, to be fair, when you look at the government financial accounts you realise that transport is actually a pretty small part of what the government does:
Of a budget of around $90 billion, the central government spends around $9-$10 billion a year on “transport and communications”. However, there’s only around $2.8 billion that comes through the National Land Transport Fund each year, and that’s essentially the transport part of the budget. Of that $2.8 billion, half of it gets passed through to councils for them to spend (although central government still gets to have quite a say in how the councils spend it, via the Government Policy Statement).
So, transport is not a big component of the government budget. It’s quite understandable that people aren’t going to cast their vote based on it. And while the Roads of National Significance program is a deeply flawed one, and many of the roads themselves are very inefficient, there’s some comfort in knowing that this wasted spending is just a small part of a large economy.
…That’s not the last word, I do have more to say on this below…
Urban issues
This is a broad topic and I won’t try to address it here, but long story short, I don’t see much to inspire me in either Labour’s or National’s urban policies. I think there are people at the top of both parties who have a good understanding of urban issues, but this gets swamped by populist policies which are not well thought out. Urban issues are mainly a job for local government, but the central government still has a big role to play. I’m confident that both major parties are likely to eventually figure this stuff out.
Climate change
I’ve previously made my views clear on National’s climate change policy, and I hope they come around to acknowledging this issue as a serious one. However, climate change barely registered on the agenda this election. I can’t even remember it being mentioned in the Green Party’s collateral that ended up in my letterbox, and I barely saw it anywhere else either. I’m sure these issues will return to the public consciousness at some point; I’m just disappointed at all the opportunities we’re missing, the low hanging fruit, and the likelihood that there will be much higher costs if we wait. In the meantime, NZ’s emissions continue to increase, and there’s absolutely no leadership being taken on making any serious reductions to those emissions. This issue is strongly linked to transport, and those are where many of the reductions will need to be made. We need to take steps to decarbonise our transport system, starting right away. National have not shown any interest in doing so, and are actually doing their best to head in the opposite direction.
Summing up
We strive to be non-political, or non-partisan, or both – I’m not even sure what wording we’re going for, but hopefully you get the idea – but transport is a political issue in NZ, so inevitably we do end up taking stances on issues which are deemed to be political. I’m optimistic about some of this stuff, though. I think we are working towards a point where there is broad recognition that we can’t go on doing things the way we always have, spending all our transport money on roads and cars and having no thought to anything else. Labour and the Greens (and even New Zealand First) are well ahead of National on this, but I expect even National to figure it out in the next few years. There will be more of a common direction set, and the Roads of National Significance binge will be the last one. A few billion dollars will be wasted, and that’s sad, but as I said above, it’s a small part of a large economy.
Likewise, I’m optimistic on our cities, with the possible exception of Christchurch. I’m pretty sure that people will figure this stuff out in the next few years. In the meantime, some decisions are being made which we’ll look back on as bad ideas, and that will cost the country, but it’s surmountable and it’s not the end of the world. I’m less optimistic about climate change; the fact that it barely rates as an issue worries me. The fact that we’re not taking steps now to future proof our transport systems and cities worries me. The first step is to get climate change back on the agenda. It hasn’t gone away because we’ve stopped talking about it; it’s kept happening, and the need to take action is growing ever more pressing.
I think this blog has an important role to play in all of these issues. I want us to educate the public, critique the silly decisions that are made on these topics, push for better solutions, and work towards a broader consensus across the country as to how they should be handled. We should do that through reaching the public, councils, and the government. And we should strive to get more agreement on these issues, so they can be depoliticised and people can get back to voting on the real issues like class sizes and whether we’re providing enough funding for cosmetic surgery and which leader has better hair and who said or did something inappropriate and that kind of thing.
Processing...
For me Bryce Edward’s column in the Herald is one of the more interesting demonstrations of just how little political interest is paid to transport/urban issues in NZ. Edward’s column is intended to be a round-up of blog posts on political issues from around NZ, and as far as I know it has *never* covered anything on TransportBlog – despite 1) the latter being in the top 5 most read blogs in NZ and 2) frequent TB posts engaging with political issues.
So I think the public disinterest in transport at general election time partly reflects the general media’s disinterest. And the latter may in turn reflect the fact that people who study political science, such as Edwards, just aren’t that interested in transport/urban issues. I don’t really blame Bryce personally, but I do think it’s interesting that TB has never rated a mention in his column (as far as I’ve noticed).
It was always unlikely that we’d see the government change just as the economy starts to do well again. However, it is a surprise just how well National did. Some serious head-scratching for opposition parties to do.
So assuming the CRL doesn’t start until 2020, does this mean that the CFN should be modified to start some of the cheaper options prior to the CRL? Or is the CFN being completely delayed for 4+ years?
Also considering that rail to the airport is realistically decades away, I was wondering if a BRT should be considered along the south western motorway with stops at Mangere, Mangere Bridge, Hillsborough, Mt Roskill, Owairaka, Avondale, Kingsland and city. Nothing flash, just a few basic stations on the side of the existing motorway and maybe bus lanes where needed. Can’t be done until Waterview opens of course.
Probably means a delay to CFN implementation unless National change their preferred CRL timing.
I’d imagine we just have to grit our teeth and speed up the implementation of the CFN when there’s a chance. Can’t just keep pushing it out, the current system can’t handle it, and the council can’t fund the costs they’re going to rack up.
Len Brown now needs to get serious about the CRL. The Council budget simply can’t afford to pay for 50% of this project, and definitely not on the time frames he talks about. When the Councillors and public realise just how much gets cut from the budget to allow for this mega project it will be dropped.
They have to do the “enabling works” in the next couple of years as part of downtown redevelopment. After that it probably means waiting until 2020 to start the rest of CRL. Unless National change their position or unless the govt changes in 2017.
Enabling works will be required along the full length of the route to some degree, but that’s not what’s happening. The planned works downtown are not really the CRL project, they are building basement project. The same thing happened with Tinley Street before Britomart was given the go-ahead, when it had two rail underpasses built. Ditto with the rail underpasses on the SAL. They don’t constitute a start on the project.
The CRL is still not a given. It will not start in 2020 if the council doesn’t have the money for it, just as it wouldn’t have started in 2016 had the government changed. All the early start promises by opposition parties were contingent on the council having their contribution covered, which they didn’t.
Len Brown will exit his mayoralty years before the planned CRL start date. There are numerous political and economic scenarios that could see the project dumped in the meantime.
That’s not true. They mayors proposal document outlines how they would fund the 50%, effectively just through the regular transport budget without any extra funding streams.
Also the first section of tunnel would increase the number of peak trains and operating efficiency somewhat, so it’s not just a case of building something in advance, they could actually use it.
Your right about the CRL not starting until 2020, the Auckland council will need to plan
the city centre master plan around this and not neglect the western part of the city until
the CRL starts.
Its going to get real interesting to see how AT deal with Britomart and Newmarket now with next to no hope of the CRL materialising. Both are very close to capacity and by that I mean without trains holding up other trains to access platforms.
Given the Electric trains platform dwell times are almost double that of the diesels owing to the slow door systems plus increased time for drivers changing ends again relating to compliance with the control systems something has to give. It has to impact on the ability to deliver more frequent services especially at peak.
What is AT’s plan B because the status quo simply does not allow enough room for growth?
A lot can be done to greatly improve Auckland’s commuter services with just a little bit of tweeking.. Grand money absorbing schemes & visions are not required. As a minor example, yesterday afternoon, I, with others, sheltered in the Downtown Mall from the gale force winds in Lower Albert St while waiting for a Birkenhead Transport bus. There was a mad dash across Albert St when the bus did arrive. There are no shelters in Lower Albert St and just a couple of benches to sit on and the wind hurtles under the Albert St overbridge so of course people take their cars to the city with these sort of discomfort problems.
On the journey into the city by Birkenhead Transport the bus sat for 8 minutes at the Glenfield shops and on the return journey a similar wait at again at the Glenfield shops and again at the top of Wairau Rd. I know that the drivers are waiting for their scheduled departure times but why not adjust the timetables. The company’s services have speeded up considerably with new faster buses, smarter and more skilled drivers, the new bus lanes thru the city and of what has made a huge difference is the HOP card. So why not re-schedule the timetables. It’s not rocket science.
Incidentally the timetable on the board at my bus stop is dated 2008. Perhaps they still use horse buses here..
I suggested to AT that they reschedule timings on a few buses in the morning, so that the Birkenhead Transport Britomart & Akl Uni buses don’t turn up at the same time eg. 7.50, 8.05, 8.20 all have two buses arrive at the same time. I said that they could spread them a little bit, so that the frequency is improved without adding new buses. Here’s an excerpt from their template reply? :
—– QUOTE —-
Over the next few years Auckland Transport is moving to a simpler and more integrated public transport network for Auckland. This will deliver a New Network of buses, trains and ferries that will change the way people travel – including the need for some passengers to transfer at key interchanges. In return the New Network will allow more passengers to simply ‘turn up and go’ rather than planning trips around a timetable. It will offer flexible travel options over large parts of the city, making public transport more useful for a range of travel purposes.
….
North, Central, East
consultation: 2015
implementation: 2016-2017
—– /QUOTE —-
Great. Lets wait for 3 years, rather than implementing quick-wins. Pathetic.
The forthcoming gutting of the Resource Management Act and corresponding changes to local government laws by this government will have a bigger effect on the form of our cities than the transport funding aspects. Though locking in some more huge multi-decade PPPs is not to be sniffed at if you’re clipping the ticket on them I guess.
It’s a bit simplistic to say that (land) transport is only a small part of the Govt’s budget, because the choices made clearly affect a much larger part of the country’s budget. As I pointed out in my previous article (http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2012/09/08/transport-its-the-economy-stupid/) focusing on motor vehicles has a big effect on our public health costs, household transport expenses, and ultimately our balance of payments to import cars and fuel. Road construction/maintenance is also a relatively inefficient means to produce more jobs too.
And if the CRL is not started until 2020, that is no reason to leave the railway system to stagnate. With a little ingenuity, there could be five minute frequencies from Henderson heading east, and five minute frequencies northbound through Glen Innes. Henderson/Britomart could come down to 30 minutes. I have spent several happy hours wandering round Britomart, and it needs a rethink of the operations to get capacity up to 24 trains/hour. Some reorganization of the track could push capacity even further. Perhaps 250k CAPEX. There is some really low hanging fruit here. Having spent the money on electrification and the new EMUs, why not go all out for frequency and speed. If the public don’t respond by seriously upping patronage then let them sit in jams. I took a trip to Manukau. The station is impressive, but what appalling track geometry at the junction. What are the passenger loadings like at peak?
Can you describe your idea in a bit more detail? I assume it requires running trains that don’t go to britomart.
Yes. One route (and Onehunga drew the short straw as it only runs three coach trains) avoids Britomart, but they get to Grafton for Uni and Hospital quicker. They can change to a Britomart train at Penrose or Newmarket. I thought to run Onehunga to Swanson, with 10 minute frequency. I don’t think the Western line beyond Henderson would justify six-coach trains, but I never see the morning peak. Eventually, if you want to maximize the head count through Britomart, you have to restrict the peak slots to six-coach only.
Transfers would be quite simple with some added frequency. Ie, you could get the Swanson – Onehunga service (although I still think there is merit in a Panmure service but it needs a nothern link) and easily catch a transfer at Newmarket on to a southern citybound service
I suspect that National see a greater priority in building a second Harbour Crossing before they start the CRL. At least this will only seriously affect the quality of life for the poorer parts of the beachside suburbs.
I wouldn’t hold my breath on the CRL starting even in 2020. It is my belief that National only made the concession to start construction then in the hope that their apparent support would sway some of Auckland’s voters in their direction.
Now that the election has been won National’s half-hearted support for the CRL can be dispensed with. Give it a year or so and central government will announce, regretfully, that finances have become constrained so construction of the CRL will have to be deferred. Maybe it can be re-instated in the next ten year plan, or the one after that….
I’m still at a loss why anyone trusts John Key. He presents well. But he comes from an occupation with a massively inflated ratio of sociopathic individuals (who often present well). While there he led a banking unit closely associated with causes of the GFC and was supposedly nicknamed the smiling assassin.
Most of his assets are outside of NZ and he basically managed to wander into politics and become leader of the country without having served a full term as an MP.
You nailed it already- he presents well.
Same reason Labour collapsed- Cunliffe doesn’t present well.
“he basically managed to wander into politics and become leader of the country without having served a full term as an MP”
Key was elected to parliament in 2002, and became PM in 2008. That is two full terms.
Perhaps you are thinking of David Shearer, who was elected to parliament in 2009 and became Labour leader in 2011?
Biggest mistake for Labour dumping Shearer. This is all for Cunliffe’s ego. Now he wants more time because he’s still ‘learning the job’.
And that’s what I get for relying on hearsay instead of consulting sources properly.
However “maiden speech as leader on 28 November 2006”, which means he served 1 full term as an MP prior to becoming National’s leader, not 2. I did however stipulate PM, so you are correct in that regard.
@George.
“characterized by a disregard for the feelings of others, a lack of remorse or shame, manipulative behaviour, unchecked egocentricity, and the ability to lie in order to achieve one’s goals”
I’m not a socialist by the standards of this country. I don’t blame “a few traders” I blame common human cognitive bias for the failure to accurately assess risk and a wilful blindness to outcomes. Something we all suffer from.
And I said nothing at all about “populist policies”. While I would have preferred Labours policies for the country as a whole, I personally will be better off under National if they fulfil their promises.
I worry, SPECIFICALLY, about John Key because I feel that his background makes it more likely that he is skilled and competent liar and manipulator, and that he has little or no economic incentive to further the goals of this country over those of others, such as the US.
That might well not be the case, but it is sufficient that before electing him leader of this country I would have liked us to have a clearer understanding of the man and his motivations.
But then generally I think that should apply to all politicians.
In fact, there are a number of cognitive and psychological measures I think we should introduce into our parliamentary system that would significantly reduce the adverse effects of partisanship and self interest on our country. Unfortunately, it would require the government to choose to regulate itself in a manner designed to induce change, and that is something any organic system automatically ends up selecting against.
Well most of you already know that I am actually called George Joseph Lane if you follow me on twitter.
The comment above this is actually from Hayden Smith you is harassing generation zero and anyone loosely associated with them at the moment. Anyone who actually knows me could tell you that I fully understand that the GFC was purely the fault of bankers.
Agreed. Bush was just the face in front on multiple banking lobbyists who were the final strand in the rope that led to the GFC. Is it 5 paid lobbyists per congressman in the US? Politicians were just the mule that saw the watering down Glass Steagall legislation, that separated investment banking from commercial banking slowly until its two most important provisions were repealed by Bill Clinton, and I bet he didn’t have a clue why he was doing it in reality. There was quick money to be made back then, greed is good,at least until the whole house came down and the US taxpayer had to pick up the tab!
By that argument, greed is still good. After all if you made the money, you didn’t have to pay for the clean up. And you can make some more money during the rebuild.
Moloch did it.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
National won this time primarily for a very simple reason: Data. Key said as much in his victory speech. They did market research (polling, with specific questions about direction, mood for each policy area) constantly, and used that data to position themselves and repeat a narrative which confirms what people are already thinking.
When Key said NZ doesn’t care about dirty politics he *knew it was true*, as he had the data to back him up. By repeating it he’s confirming it to the voters – showing them he’s in touch which is what people vote for.
(Obviously there’s a bunch of other reasons they won as well, but this is in my opinion the largest).
While it’s true that transport spending is only directly accounted by a relatively small line item, its consequences are not isolated from the other expenses. Transport investment decisions can be paid for by the transport budget, or they can also be paid for by or the health budgets, or the social services budgets, or, indeed, privately by families and individuals. Opportunity cost may be accounted as debt or cuts elsewhere too. And generalised costs can go beyond financial sums (death, injury, etc). In that sense, transport and urban issues are very much election issues, but perhaps not sufficiently well understood as such.
Absolutely, I should have pointed that out in the post, and Matt raised it in a tweet the other day.
Krugman wrote about this a few days ago –
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/19/opinion/paul-krugman-could-fighting-global-warming-be-cheap-and-free.html
“the economics of climate protection look even better now than they did a few years ago. On one side, there has been dramatic progress in renewable energy technology…. On the other side, it turns out that putting a price on carbon would have large ‘co-benefits’–positive effects over and above the reduction in climate risks–and that these benefits would come fairly quickly. The most important of these co-benefits, according to the I.M.F. paper, would involve public health: burning coal causes many respiratory ailments, which drive up medical costs and reduce productivity…”
You can never be “non political”, because public policy is inherently political. It’s the technocrat’s delusion that the “right answer” can be identified because even the most “scientific” cost:beneft analysis relies on a particular utilitarian political philosophy.
The distribution of benefits is a political issue, as are intended and unintended outcomes of policy decisions. Is the CRL a non political perspective? You can talk about the benefits in terms of moving people etc. but those are political benefits – some win, some lose (more win than lose, of course). And, of course, any expenditure of public money is a political decision
Interestingly that figure quoted for Defence is actual NZDF expenditure *less* the capital charge (2.218bn less 453m) so there’s some relatively complex accounting approaches used here.
Having met said Mister Key on a quite few occasions I get the distinct impression that he actually understands that Auckland needs to update its infrastructure. That Auckland needs alternatives to roads and that a good rail network is the start of this and that it will turn Auckland into a city that can compete with the regional players. I also get the distinct feeling that he has a large contingent of province champions who thinks rail is for misguided welfare recipients who cant afford a decent car to battle against within the National Party. You know the ones who sees a lifestyle block on the outskirts of town as the essential kiwi dream. The dinosaurs.
John Key has been abroad, hes lived abroad, he knows very well that we need to greatly improve Auckland to succeed, that Auckland is the heart of the country, the port of call for overseas visitors and the economic engine that will drive the country forward. Auckland is replacing agriculture as the creative wealth generator in this country. But sell that to the potbellied, Lion red drinking, Holden driving, lifestyle block living provincials who make jokes about jafas and who still has considerable sway within national.
And look who has handled transport and who is opinionated about that. Sure isn’t your jazzbar crowd that gain those portfolios. National has had too many people from the countryside running the party for way to long. John key has positioned National in the middle and for that he has ensured that the finances and the distribution politics has remained in his clout. Transport and defense etc the traditionalists, the dinosaurs that used to be Helen Clarkes punchbags and who used to embarrass themselves annually at Orewa, has been allowed to claim as theirs and be proud of.
As Auckland takes over more and more within NZ and within National, this will change and the likes of Brownlee and Joyce will become a minority and replaced with upper middle class urbanites that frequently has visited your NY, London and Singapores and sees them as inspirations. With them National will become what the Tories are in the UK and that is the greatest spenders on public transport, rail and bicycling the nation has ever seen.
Hmm what Labour has done over the last 5 years is implode and if the party cant see that and change Id say that national has another clear win coming in 2017. Even the hardest of Labour voters that I know of aren’t happy with how their present lot has handled themselves and the party, and they shouldn’t be…
Interesting comment there. On specific policy matters, I was never sure if what comes out of Key’s mouth is genuine and still aren’t. However, his sense of emotion and relief at winning at winning on Saturday was real, as was his acknowledgement of others. John Key’s relentless pursuit of the political centre…… and gentle tugging of the political centre toward the right, yet with a quite obvious disdain for Colin Craig and his policies, is also real. Quite clearly John Key has wide appeal and is held by many to be the epitomy of a “kiwi bloke made good”.
Labour? David Cunliffe is the least of their worries. He was elected by the Labour Party organisation to debate well with John Key in a hostile media environment, and by and large he was effective in that task. However, in the “big picture” over-arching strategic policy and electioneering direction, Labour was comprehensively out-witted and out-gunned. Sorry, the Dirty Politics saga is just an excuse. The “missing million voters” I think it is fair to say, are a lost cause given the events leading up to the election, and the results of the election. The hunting ground is the centre, as it almost always has been. To even begin to come back from the wilderness, Labour is going to have to present as a political party that potential donors would want to fund. The Labour Party organisation itself from the party president down has to be up for question in light of the election result. Failure to do so will consign Labour to political irrelevance.
And a generation of National power, as was the case in the Keith Holyoake era.
John Key has already framed his next term of government as being about tax cuts. He will pursue that goal relentlessly. All other opportunities such as transforming Auckland will only be considered if it doesn’t interfere with John Key’s primary message.
The Auckland National party contingent have taken a massive hit recently though. Judith Collins was their faction’s leader and she hasn’t exactly covered herself in glory of late.
Think we’ve got some more years of provincial yokels and status quo-ers in charge yet.
Wrong as usual Sailor Boy. The GFC was a result of too much cheap money in the markets – a political fault shared by the left and right of the time. George W Bush thought it would be good to encourage capitalism through property investment and home ownership and Tony Blair who thought give the punters cheap money and they will keep voting for Labour. Thank god Gordon \brown got thrown out or else the UK would have joined Greece and Spain. Brown wanted to increase spending during the depths of the crisis and QE is just a nasty way to devalue through printing money.
No – the bankers might have had their part to play but without the key ingredients of cheap interest rates – lower lending criteria and collective greed of the public there wouldnt have been a crisis. Unfortunately nothing has changed – money is still cheap – people are still greedy and politicians still clueless 🙁
Have to agree with the article, although I’m a big transport follower, and disappointed in the governments location of transport funds at times (a lot of times), my vote was not based around transport issues and more the economic, education and security policies. This is where National stand out in my opinion.
Urban issues to me are a local body situation, and I’m of the belief that urban transport should be as well. Unfortunately with the transport funding structure this cannot be the case, and the central government does have influence. I can say for certain, that if transport was a higher priority decision influencer, my vote would have been different.
Also the land slide was helped by the dirty tactics of Kim and his followers, making it a trust issue actually helped the National Party.
“Auckland council seeks transport funding talks with new government”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?objectid=11329400
“Auckland Council wants to talk to the new Government about special taxes, including road charges and vehicle congestion charges”
“Auckland Council wages blowout”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11328550
“According to the council’s annual report the cost of paying staff ballooned $50m over the $680m budget. That figure comes after it was revealed this week the number of people employed by the council increased by 518 this year to 11,134, while those earning six-figure salaries jumped almost 20 per cent to 1780.”
The council is going to have to get their house in order before the government agrees to additional taxes or funding.
Perhaps the Government should get its own house in order first on such matters before it starts casting financial mis-management aspersions around and on the biggest single democratically elected organisation outside the Government itself?
You’re not talking about the Council that plans to raise our debt from 2$B to 8$B are you?
That’s not the worst case scenario- that’s the actual Plan…
Even if so, its relatively small “pittance” compared to the over $60B the government racked up in debt in the last 6 years in “our name”, and I might remind you that that $8B “debt” figure you talk of is from over 1/3rd of the NZ population.
On that alone, on a per-capita basis, the Auckland Council is being very thrifty in its past and present spending plans with regards debt compared to the Governments past, present and future largesses.
As I said on CBT, it’s a shame your Tories are anti public transport and rail, because over here we managed to get 4 underground rail projects (one each in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth) committed under right wing governments, though at least 2 of those through clenched teeth.
The federal disaster of a right wing government is anti-urban rail, the lunatic Tony Abbott taking great delight in telling everyone his own personal dislike of rail – but their funding is only supplementary to the issue, they are not the decision-makers or primary funders in all cases.
And further afield, Rob Ford was pressuring Toronto folk into underground rail instead of the preferred light rail. Something I guess. BoJo in London and the moderate republicans in New York seem OK with underground rail.
So no, it doesn’t have to be a part of a rightwing government agenda, just the teaparty elements who want it that way.
I have considerable optimism that Key is increasingly becoming more in the mould of a modern urban conservative like Cameron than a rabid city-hating highwayman like Abbott. He has already shifted on funding urban cycleways, and it won’t take too much for him to see the historic opportunity to become the father of Auckland’s transformation into a truly modern Metro City with the City Rail Link.
His position of authority within Cabinet now is surely total; if he wants it the die-hard provincialists will go along with it too.
The Green party had three main areas this year:
– For a cleaner environment: We love Aotearoa and we want to protect it. Our kids have a birth right to swim in clean rivers, fish in the sea, and walk in pristine forests. https://www.greens.org.nz/policy/cleaner-environment
– For a fairer society: The Green Party envisions an Aotearoa New Zealand which celebrates diversity and encourages appreciation between groups. https://www.greens.org.nz/policy/fairer-society
– For a smarter economy: The Green Party has a plan to create a smart economy that will deliver real prosperity for everyone and help the environment. https://www.greens.org.nz/policy/smarter-economy
The Greens are sometimes accused of being Watermelons (Green on the outside, red on the inside), perhaps they should switch to being Kiwifruit (Green on the outside and the inside). I wonder if the Green party would have had a better result if they had focused on cleaner environment and smarter economy, and left ‘fairer society’ social justice to Mana and Labour. The result for the environment would be much better if they could takes NZ First’s “king-maker” spot, instead of being the left wing of the Green-Labour coalition.
Here’s a blog arguing against my position http://blog.greens.org.nz/2012/03/24/link-between-environmentalism-social-justice/, but I’m not convinced. With the climate change catastrophe on its way, it’s imperative that we switch to a low carbon economy, and use your position to influence the world. Humans will survive if society continues to be unfair, humans might not survive if we continue destroying the environment.
Can any environmental policy really be divorced from economic policy and visa versa? Doesn’t the entire economy exist within the environment? Is it plausible to have concern for the environment but not people, ie isn’t environmental policy therefore also social policy?
So to be credible don’t all major parties need to have integrated Environmental, Economic, and Social policy?
I agree environmental policy and economic policy cannot be divorced. But social justice is less important in the scheme of things (and can be left to other parties that Greens will end up in coalition with).
What’s more important, explaining why we need to replace the ETS with a carbon tax that gives us a cut in income taxes (as per http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/07/12/201502003/episode-472-the-one-page-plan-to-fix-global-warming), or flax baskets for newborn babies. Flax baskets don’t sound bite well.
I think Greens need to be smart like National were about asset sales, get into power first, then do the unpopular things (like look after kids).
Greens could steal National voters and undecided with the following environmental and economic policies. Not so much with their social policies.
Cleaner environment: Rivers we can swim in, protecting our beaches from oil spills.
Smarter economy: Climate Tax Cut, Green Transport, Smart green innovation, smarter energy, digital manufacturing, solar schools, safe to school, green investment bank.
Oh ok, you’re just talking tactics? Interesting problem. As it is clear that the perception of the Green Party as having ‘far left’ or ‘wacky’ economic or social policy hurt them in the election, however this is a heavily constructed and promoted idea. Heavily invested in by their opponents and one, frankly, that doesn’t stand up to any objective analysis. All their policy is costed and their budget independently balanced; they even propose lowering corporate tax, ffs.
National ran a huge and clearly very effective scaremongering attack campaign that swamped all media on this theme. And probably always will while Joyce is in charge of the campaign. I find it very hard to imagine what the Greens could do differently to counter this distortion. Very hard for them to get more moderate, frankly, without abandoning any reason to exist at all.
Their’s is a market based solution to the interlinked problems of the environment, economy, and society, largely involving essentially neoliberal type pricing mechanisms to improve outcomes by making true costs explicit. These are aims and processes that ACT [in particular] and National ought to support. They are not communism or crazy.
But they don’t because they threaten, or may threaten, vested interests that these parties represent, and because they are being proposed by ‘the wrong people’.
I’m not sure how the Greens can counter these two problems in practical ways….?
Finance costs of around 6% Presumably if we were “allowed” to issue and control our own monetary system (ie, control our own system of government) , that would be zero?
Also ‘interesting’ to see non of the supposed experts above have even thought to mention that issue- so ingrained in them it has been that some far off foreign power has the exclusive right to control NZ’s money supply and issue its debt.
This is the inherent learning difficulty that entraps us.
Blindness if you will.
what foreign power is this?