No point having a fleet of electric trains when the power is generated at the Huntly power station.

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.

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.

>
>>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.

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

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.

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.

The people National need to reach aren’t political groupies

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.