Comments on: v16 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2007/06/21/v16/ hopping along the corridors of power Wed, 07 Jan 2009 22:01:10 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Sapient http://blog.greens.org.nz/2007/06/21/v16/#comment-28720 Sapient Wed, 27 Jun 2007 06:11:41 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2007/06/21/v16/#comment-28720 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 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

]]> By: Kevyn http://blog.greens.org.nz/2007/06/21/v16/#comment-28707 Kevyn Wed, 27 Jun 2007 02:11:34 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2007/06/21/v16/#comment-28707 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. 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.

]]> By: Gerrit http://blog.greens.org.nz/2007/06/21/v16/#comment-28697 Gerrit Tue, 26 Jun 2007 20:42:10 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2007/06/21/v16/#comment-28697 "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. “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.

]]> By: jh http://blog.greens.org.nz/2007/06/21/v16/#comment-28696 jh Tue, 26 Jun 2007 20:39:04 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2007/06/21/v16/#comment-28696 4% and goin' down. :sad: jh 4% and goin’ down. :sad:
jh

]]> By: marcb http://blog.greens.org.nz/2007/06/21/v16/#comment-28695 marcb Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:38:53 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2007/06/21/v16/#comment-28695 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! 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!

]]> By: Kevyn http://blog.greens.org.nz/2007/06/21/v16/#comment-28691 Kevyn Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:30:06 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2007/06/21/v16/#comment-28691 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/ 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/

]]> By: marcb http://blog.greens.org.nz/2007/06/21/v16/#comment-28639 marcb Mon, 25 Jun 2007 07:50:57 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2007/06/21/v16/#comment-28639 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. :-) 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. :-)

]]> By: Kevyn http://blog.greens.org.nz/2007/06/21/v16/#comment-28612 Kevyn Sun, 24 Jun 2007 12:56:15 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2007/06/21/v16/#comment-28612 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?" 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?”

]]> By: Edge http://blog.greens.org.nz/2007/06/21/v16/#comment-28608 Edge Sun, 24 Jun 2007 08:43:38 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2007/06/21/v16/#comment-28608 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. 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.

]]> By: Sapient http://blog.greens.org.nz/2007/06/21/v16/#comment-28607 Sapient Sun, 24 Jun 2007 08:34:44 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2007/06/21/v16/#comment-28607 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. :P Sapient 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. :P

Sapient

]]>