Posts by Joshua Arbury
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Some Lines for Labour, in reply to Sacha,
What I’d mainly like to hear is a way out of the mess. A better future. Hope.
Yeah that would be good. Tough to see a way out though as many of the things that would normally come rescue us (high export prices, growing demand for exports etc.) don't seem to be making much of a difference.
The argument from National seems to be that we're not recovering in the short-term because we're saving the extra cash rather than spending it - which will help in the longer term. While that might be true, if it takes a few more years for things to turn around then how are things going to be when we come out the other side?
-
Hard News: Some Lines for Labour, in reply to bmk,
How they should play it, I think, is by pointing out that the huge deficit has arisen from the tax cuts given. Basically that National through these tax cuts have created a structural deficit and that cutting spending isn’t the answer but reversing the tax cuts is. They should campaign on something like a 39% marginal rate on income over 90k and a 45% marginal rate on income over 150k.
Somehow National still manage to get away with saying that the tax "switch" was cost neutral. Surely some straightforward questions in parliament would fix that problem:
1) What was the revenue raised from income tax in the six months after October 2010 and how does that compare to the same six months after October 2009?
2) What was the revenue raised from GST in the six months after October 2010 and how does that compare with the same six months after October 2009?
Surely if the loss in revenue from 1 is bigger than the boost in 2, then the tax switch didn't pay for itself.
-
To be fair to Labour, they're in a bloody difficult situation with their economic arguments at the moment. The more they slam the state of the economy, the more National will use that to justify spending cuts. The good old "strategic deficit" approach seems to have worked a charm in National's case - to the point where it seems they're now almost trumpeting how utterly massive the budget deficit is. Usually you'd be ashamed of it.
Labour really need to decide whether they're going to criticise National's mishandling of the economy by highlighting areas of stupid spending (please start with their pork-barrel, I mean transport, policy) or highlighting how Labour's going to painlessly raise revenue.
After all, there's only two ways to reduce the deficit: increase revenue or decrease spending and Labour don't seem too keen on the latter.
-
Good post Russell.
It's interesting to think that at the last election I really wanted to vote for both Labour and the Greens as I felt both parties were worthy of my vote. I suspect this time my decision will come down to which party is being less useless. The Greens are probably winning on that front at the moment - though I wish they would learn that they lose far more votes than they gain from many of their "hard left" policies.
One wonders whether Labour's uselessness right now is because they have stuffed up with the timing of settling on their policies. There may be a growing unease about the government but at the moment there is no alternative vision, Cunliffe's good work is being ignored because Labour are too busy focusing on stupid stuff, and they generally seem disorganised.
I know some good policymaking is going on behind the scenes, they just need to start talking about it - quickly.
I thought Goff's "The many not the few" speech a while back was great. How come we haven't heard that line in months?
-
So this argument is over something that will at most cost around $10 million in extra council funding. Meanwhile, between October 2010 and June 2011, the Council will spend about $300 million on capital funding for roads in Auckland.
-
The other thing worth noting is that between now and 2050 Auckland's population is set to grow by about a million. The entire rest of NZ's population is anticipated to grow by less than 400,000 over the same time period.
-
Nikki Kaye has gone awfully quiet on this issue in recent weeks.
-
The 1.1m is the contiguous urban area (rather than the "Auckland region"). It's also slightly out of date.
Measuring population density is always a bit of a "dark art". Where does a city actually end, should we count parks & other open spaces? Should we count lakes and rivers? How about industrial areas?
The figures will always be a bit fuzzy, but what's important to note is that generally Auckland's population density is not nearly as low as it's often made out to be. Auckland is most certainly higher density than Brisbane & Perth: two cities with extremely popular rail systems that continue to be expanded.
-
Oh excellent, an urban planning blog post and with transport thrown in too!
I agree with pretty much everything you say in terms of a harbour crossing and the necessity of the MUL. However, I disagree completely with what you have to say about transport.
First reason - the assertion that Auckland's a very low density city by international standards. I call bullshit on that one - in fact if you look at the statistics you'll find that Auckland's population density is around 2200 people per square kilometre. That compares with Vancouver at 1700, Perth at 1200 and Brisbane at a measly 900. So Auckland certainly has the density to sustain a public transport system that includes rail.
Second reason - why put all our eggs in one basket by focusing on buses alone? Sure, around 80% of Auckland's public transport use is on the bus network and it's likely to stay that way for some time yet. But what's the point of building a southern busway when we already have a railway line going south (that we're spending lots of money electrifying)? What's the point of a western busway when there's a western line (unless you're talking about a busway along SH16, in which case I agree completely).
Buses suit some jobs best, rail suits other jobs best. Horses for courses I say - apply the best technology for the particular situation rather than going in with blinkered "buses/trains are always best!" ideology.
-
I think it would be an interesting development if this party did happen. I have been thinking for a while about whether the Greens are helped or harmed by being "left of Labour", or at least being perceived as left of Labour.
If we look at the Mt Albert byelection results (just as an example, because I know the area well and I followed is quite closely) in the richer parts of the suburbs (Kingsland etc.) Mr Norman did best while in the more "working class" areas (like Avondale) he did abysmally.
Perhaps if one was to examine the socio-economic status of Green Party voters you might find them to be richer, more educated and so forth compared to a Labour voter or even a voter that might be tempted by this new party.
Of course just because someone is well off doesn't meant they won't care about "left" issues, in fact they might very much do so. I just wonder whether the Green Party loses more potential "environmentally minded centrists" through the whole "watermelon" perception than it gains from hard-left voters who might be tempted by a Sue Bradford/Matt McCarten Party.
I know a lot of people who are big fans of the Green Party's transport policies, their renewable energy policies and their climate change policies but are totally put off voting for them by the more radical "traditional left" parts of the party. I guess this is the difference between the Green Party's more 'hardcore' membership and where most of their votes probably sit.
I suppose to summarise, as a "centre left" supporter I think there would be more chance of having a centre-left government if the Green Party started grabbing votes off National, rather than just off Labour. If the Greens shift to the centre, say they'll work with anyone as long as they get a number of key wins and this new party emerges "left of Labour" with its votes partly coming from the Greens (who hopefully pick up a whole pile more environmentally conscious centrists) and partly from Labour, things could be interesting.