However there is a third, oft neglected principle, of appropriate decision making. And it is exactly this principle that has the most to offer NZ society at the current time.
——-
How does that principle relate to the Section 59 fiasco?. How can people make “appropriate decisions” while we are dished up obsfucation and rhetoric etc, and dodgy statistics.

I think that while the far right can’t deal with consumption and greed; the far left can’t deal with issues pertaining to population [DPB] (and have a lot of perceptions at variance with the people in between).
jh

[when will the Greens put out a (thourgh) Section 59 faq– with q’s from those opposed]

Not during the current legislature. The fact is, with the current coalition alignment, the Greens are powerless — cut out because of Labour’s deal with the sunset centrist parties. On certain issues, Greens can get legislation passed, with Labour support, and vice versa. But they don’t need us for confidence and supply.

Now, theoretically Labour could change partners and make a new coalition with Greens and Maori Party. From a policy point of view that would be excellent. But they won’t do that because that would give a new lease of life to Winsome and Peters, whom Clark hopes to crowd out at the next election.

Now, logically, Labour will lose the next election anyway. In that perspective, do the Greens want to go back to being a voice in the wilderness, or are we prepared to consider cutting deals with National?

Gerrit - I will make it my personal mission to ensure that the Greens do not support Labour in the next election. You do, however, misinterpret the diversity of people within the party.

Socialists and environmentalists do exist within the Party. That is true. It is these groups that are reflected in the principles of social justice of ecological sustainability.

However there is a third, oft neglected principle, of appropriate decision making. And it is exactly this principle that has the most to offer NZ society at the current time. I recommend that you Google the term “urban liberal” and find out what it means.

You’ll probably find that the term is something that “mainstream” New Zealanders, such as Dr. Brash, will hate. You’ll also find, however, that the term has nothing to do with socialists or environmentalists.

and there is a new nuance in parliament these days…

questiontime is notorious for the ongoing heckling/barracking by the major parties..

heckling that used to be also thrown at the greens all the time..

that dosen’t happen any more..

all of jeanettes’ questions yesterday were heard in a respectful/quiet manner..

and the other greens are also being afforded the respect of having their words/ideas heard/listened to..

it’s encouraging..in a small way..

phil(whoar.co.nz)

Seems like the Greens are coming to a cross road. The left wingers want to stay with Labour and pursue the s59 repeal, the environmentalist want to kick Labour into touch and get Cullen to spend the surplus on an already 30 years late, public transport upgrade for Auckland.

Sooner or later the Greens are going to have to choose.

I dont care to much if they build new roads as you need to keep the Auckland trasport flowing while the new rail infastructure is built. (10 Years at least).

The newly established road corridors can always be converted to public transport later. Or better still run the public transport on top or alongside the roadway. Such should be happening with the SH20 extension.

How shortsighted is Westfield when they have public transport skirting their flash new shoppping, entertainment and proffesional centre at Sylvia Park and they dont even put in a train station for the public. No wonder the tenants are not getting the turnover projected. Crap place to get to in a car.

Another outstandingly illogical comment from Cullen:
“But, of course, one of the essential differences is that if one is driving a car, one cannot be doing anything else; if one is in a train, one can. Therefore, the value of time lost when in a car is more than that lost when on a train.”

Let’s imagine a hypothetical situation where Person A is currently driving to work and it takes them one hour. Imagine that a rail project is proposed that will get them to work in 55 min. Another project is proposed to build a new road that will reduce their drive to 55min.

There are two possible outcomes:
1. Rail project is built and Person A gains 5 min of time and 55 minutes of time that can be used for other purposes.
2. Road project is built and Person A gains 5 min of time.

Under Cullen’s logic, the second outcome is better. Cullen’s inept answers are only confirming the ridiculously illogical set of economic assumptions that underline cost benefit analysis of transport projects in NZ.

What I mean is, he is actually very good in classical terms, of 30 years ago… but he’s missed the paradigm shift completely, and he’s obviously a major obstacle to progress now.

I wonder if we should try to negotiate a transport package with National, starting now.

respectfully
BJ

In other words, nothing will change

respectfully
BJ

as for “…discount rates are arbitrary, whichever ones are used… One could use a somewhat lower discount rate, but it would not make as big a difference to total cost-benefit ratios…”

what absolute tripe doctor. i’ve done a few cashflow analyses in my time. the sensitivity of results to differences in discount rates of parts of a percent are often huge - especially when a shorter discount period is adopted.

cheers
mike