By Timothy Welch*
The government’s recent announcement that it would bring forward legislation to end the Auckland Regional Fuel Tax (ARFT) in June – four years early – is the third time in 30 years a National-led government has repealed such a tax.
Pulling the plug seems less about the cost of living or misuse of tax revenue than simply sweeping clear the previous administration’s legislation. Transport policies, plans and projects have fallen at an astonishing speed since the coalition government was formed.
One of its first acts was to cancel the clean car discount that helped create a market for electric vehicles by subsidising their cost. Unsurprisingly, sales of EVs took a plunge in January. At the same time, a higher registration fee for “high-emitting vehicles”, dubbed the “ute tax”, was abandoned.
As the new government took office, transport agency Waka Kotahi quickly announced a freeze on cycling, walking and public transport projects. Road projects seem unaffected.
Other car-centric policies include plans to roll back hard-won speed limit reductions, cancel light rail projects in Wellington and Auckland, and nix a second multimodal Auckland harbour crossing.
Transport minister Simeon Brown recently doubled down on this when he announced that any additional harbour crossing would be for the exclusive use of vehicles – directly excluding consideration of cycling, walking and rail.
Missing in all this is a clear vision of what will replace all the lost policies.
Cost of living or climate
The now defunct regional fuel tax was put in place by the Labour government in 2018. It was meant to last ten years and raise NZ$1.5 billion to help fund a list of projects: the Eastern Busway, new electric train units for the City Rail Link, improved bus links to the airport, and redevelopment of the downtown ferry terminal.
The tax also funded road safety initiatives, road corridor improvements, bus and cycle lanes, red light cameras and speed humps. These were all clearly listed in the fuel tax legislation – and are clearly needed: Auckland road deaths hover around 50 people per year.
The government has also announced that legislation to axe the ARFT would specifically ban spending any remaining funds (estimated to be over $380 million) on cycle or bus lanes. This is despite strong arguments in favour of sustainable travel modes, as global temperatures surpassed the critical 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold last year.
Instead, the official rationalisation for ending the ARFT has centred on the cost of living. For instance, Simeon Brown has argued drivers with a Toyota Hilux could save “around $9.20 every time they fill up”.
Based on the Hilux’s 80-litre fuel tank and an average 12,000 kilometres per year travelled, that equates to about $92 per year, or $1.77 per week. The savings shrink significantly for smaller, more efficient vehicles.
Meanwhile, the government has announced plans to enact a road user charge for battery electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles. On top of removing the clean car discount, this makes low-emitting vehicles less competitive on price.
Failure to plan
Shifts in funding priorities are part of politics, of course. But the latest U-turns bring into sharp focus a lack of direction on infrastructure. This includes previous governments, National and Labour alike, which have failed to lock in sustainable forward planning.
Nothing exemplifies this more than the on-again, off-again plans for an expanded or new Auckland harbour crossing. After several false starts under the previous Labour government, the new government again cancelled the plans in favour of “providing extra lanes for traffic” and “enhancing the existing busway”.
This is despite 70 years of evidence showing that adding more roads worsens congestion. As the adage goes, failing to plan is planning to fail.
Consequently, New Zealand’s vehicle ownership rates are among the highest in the world. Per-capita road deaths are higher than in many peer nations. At the same time, rates of walking, cycling and public transport use remain stubbornly low – due mainly to a lack of supply, rather than insufficient demand.
Nationally, rail networks remain under-developed, despite clear demand and excellent examples of success internationally.
Decades of see-sawing government priorities mean New Zealand’s biggest and most economically important city has no clear plan to transition out of its fossil fuel dependence.
Unless long-term transport planning and related infrastructure projects are elevated out of the political cycle, it is hard to be optimistic about sustainable progress.
*Timothy Welch, Senior Lecturer in Urban Planning, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau..
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
69 Comments
"Pulling the plug seems less about the cost of living or misuse of tax revenue than simply sweeping clear the previous administration’s legislation"
This is it and it's an easy thing they can put on their 100 day list. Taking short sighted governance to a whole new level.
All this does is ensure heavy hitters like Fulton Hogan reposition heavy road construction equipment to australia as jobs end here, there is no agreed to train of work for anyone to build a sustainable business. Young civals move to aussie to build their tunnels, roads etc....
we built transmission and stopped, built warkworth and stopped, tunnelled waterview and stopped.
why did we not continue to wellsford, why not start the 2nd harbour crossing....
all this stop start is wastefull and very very very expensive.
Perhaps the only way we will ever get long term policy is to keep the same government in power, and that creates other issues.
Is your role or those close to you dependent on Gov funding of roading infrastructure? Not a criticism but possible conflict of interest?
Our infrastructure in all facets is failing. Underinvestment over the last 20-30years and the massive strain by rampant population growth. I genuinely wonder what the country would be like with 1 million fewer people. Probably 'better' as a generic all-encompassing descriptor.
Well given my job is in transport and most transport infrastructure is funded by central or local government either directly or through requiring private developments to build it then yes, of course my role depends on local or central government funding in the same way most teachers do and health professionals, electricity engineer's, stormwater engineers, and anyone who works in public service.
My aim as a professional (and as a ratepayer and taxpayer) has always been to try to save ratepayers and taxpayers (and myself) money. Sometimes this advice suggests building stuff, more often it involves not building stuff but making better use of existing infrastructure. I'm not one of the people who are ideologically vested to any particular solution, whatever is the best one according to the evidence. I've worked with great right wing, left wing and centrist politicians. The point is to get the best solution.
Simeon Brown is the worse minister of transport I have ever encountered. He is incapable of grasping any answer that sits out side his ideologically predetermined mindset, is pretty and vindictive as a person and I have to say, not very bright.
I think its a little more self serving than "Pulling the plug seems less about the cost of living or misuse of tax revenue than simply sweeping clear the previous administration’s legislation" and the choice for us a citizens is obvious:
1 - National will bring tax cuts that mostly benefit their backers, real estate investors, and big business. They pay for this by axing public spendature and infrastructure investments. Cars and roads benefit car sales, Fulton Hogan, and real estate values. Trickledown economics etc etc....
2- Labor will bring increased taxes for everyone but will increase public expenditure (benefiting their backers-civil servants) and infrastructure spending. Some how they manage to avoid rocking the apple cart of real estate investors and big business too much while still screwing the little guy... Higher taxes for everyone but more money going into the economy through public coffers, trickle down economics etc etc...
Not great choices really, but I know which one I prefer.
The people voted on this choice, the grownups, realised it was not tax and spend but borrow and spend, where did the rest of the covid fund go Grant? not into NZ stats, or NZ roading.....
The choices seem bad as one was leading to financial ruin, and the other is living within or means... hard choices.
The budget is going to be a horror show..... not as much fun as the Rocky horror show....
I think thats the point i was trying to make badly, Nats are not actually cutting spending, they are cutting taxes and diverting spending to other areas. eg - remove fuel tax, cut all 'green' transport initiatives, but invest in more roads. I'd imagine the net spend is about the same. But somehow we are all worse off for it. Unless you work at Fulton Hogan and co of course.
I think having a cap gain tax would change things but not necessarily through increased cap gain tax..... IE we live in a country where almost anyone with money structures their life to create cap gain rather than income, IE I can subdivide and create 1mil site vs how long/hard is it for me to make 1mil after tax as income..... yep ages.
So if we had a 30% cap gain tax or marginal rate, we may see more investment in productive enterprise vs property spec.
That would create huge increase in GST and company / income tax, so yes cap gains tax would increase tax but via re incentivising productive investment. Not saying cap gains tax would not produce income but ...
There is NO CHANCE in HELL that NACT going to indroduce a cap gains tax IMHO
JA said it was because they didn't have the public support through polling etc to introduce a CGT. So ultimately it's all our fault for all wanting tax free capitals gains for ourselves, even though with your arguments we'd be better off with if CGT was introduced.
Maybe the public didn't support it in JA time, but they certainly do now.
New survey shows widespread support for taxes on capital gains and windfall profits
Perhaps most surprisingly, these policies were popular across both the political right and left.
[windfall profits tax] was most popular among the Greens, with 89% support, and least popular amongst ACT voters, but still 74% of ACT voters supported it.
A similar trend was seen with the capital gains tax question
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300979367/new-survey-shows-wi…
Everyone has seen the boomers make oodles on property and the prices of housing become unreachable for the youth. Middleaged folk seeing they would practically have to help their kids out if their kids ever want to own a home and realising that what good is never-ending capital gain if it comes at the expense of robbing their children from the opportunity of home ownership and effectively squandering the family wealth that takes a lifetime or generation to accumulate.
The crazy thing about all this is that improving alternative forms of transport to cars will actually improve travel times for road users, because all the people who choose to walk, cycle, ferry, bus, or train instead of drive are freeing up space for cars to move faster. See how bad traffic was in Auckland when the train lines were down for months! If you want to improve your driving experience, you should advocate for more trains everywhere to free up the roads for yourself!
And adding to that the road deaths that will continue due to increased speed limits, fewer speed bumps and pedestrian crossings, and it's just a travesty.
I'm assuming you're referring to the Bernard Orsman hit piece on AT in the Herald.
I'm also assuming you didn't see the Herald correction buried in the back pages the day after where they were forced to clarify that some of the crossings only cost 16K not 500K.
Orsman had that information and chose not to publish it. Why?
https://twitter.com/publicaddress/status/1757486339128426939
Here is the story and the correction.
https://twitter.com/publicaddress/status/1757232889824174385
But it required someone who was familiar with Bernard's lying approach to go and fact check him.
https://at.govt.nz/media/1992225/the-effect-of-speed-on-emmisions-summa…
There are many many reports, and no they do not add significantly to vehicle emissions and when you consider they do things like make it safer for kids to walk to school, which means no school run in the car they generally result in less emissions overall because of mode shift to less emission heavy modes. At a system-wide level they are great for emissions and all the other negative externalities of car dependence e.g. health, equity, mental health, safety, societal cost.
It's just lazy argument people who have already made their mind up use to try to justify their regressive opinions.
Actually speed humps make things more dangerous and deadly especially for emergency vehicles and their patients and for those who are more vulnerable with medical conditions traveling on and around roads. This has been well established but as many deaths due to speed humps are recorded as other reasons i.e. if they cause severe injury & death the persons medical condition gets blamed not the speed hump that put them in the position of injury. But the crowd of "wont someone think of the children" basically follow a eugenic policy of deciding that disabled people should be dying at higher rates anyway and to exclude them from most research even though they number 25% of the population.
I'm a supporter of a light rail/tram network in the inner city but not for all the money to go on a single rail link to the airport. I'm a supporter of cycleways as well. I support council rates being spent on fixing pipes but not that money being diverted to pay more bureaucrats to say no to everything.
When I read this article I see '30 k speed limit' and I don't care about the rest of the article, because I know that the article is written by a bureaucratic safety type person who wants a regular source of funds to pay for a large bureaucratic organisation that exists solely to waste money, do nothing to fix the problem and get in the way of a solution.
Labour ended up convincing me that they had no interest in workable solutions. If you have a goal to fix infrastructure then that is what your focus should be, not using the infrastructure for social engineering.
Yes it would be great to continue to have a fund to pay for an inner city light rail/tram network, but if the fund ends up being diverted to pay for speed bumps, 30 k zones, large tunnels to nowhere and a vast bureaucracy then you may as well scrap the fund because it's never going to be used for the purpose it was set up for.
Better to start the light rail/tram network and have dedicated funds for it, because starting a fund that gets used for everything but that purpose just wastes time and money and corrupts the whole process.
Labour had a real chance to make progress on infrastructure but they blew it by diverting the funds to subsidise their interest groups. Now this is the consequence.
People need to understand that New Zealand is a consensus based society. Ramming your idea through may work for a while for your sectors interest and then it generally leads to big problems. Needing every last troublemaker's ok for anything to proceed doesn't work either. No doubt we will fudge a solution eventually but it won't be an optimal solution and it will be an expensive solution that we probably can't afford.
From auckland councils fuel tax proposal document:
The key elements of the programme are to:
• increase capacity and use of the existing public transport network, with particular focus on high growth
areas and those with poor existing travel choices
• continue to encourage active transport options through the extension of the walking and cycling network
• increase the capacity of the existing road network to improve overall performance
• increase investment in road safety initiatives
• support key growth areas with appropriate transport infrastructure
Summary of projects in the overall programme
1 Bus priority improvements
2 City Centre bus infrastructure
3 Improving Airport Access
4 Eastern Busway (formerly AMETI)
5 Park and Rides
6 Electric trains and stabling
7 Downtown ferry redevelopment
8 Road Safety
9 Active transport
10 Penlink
11 Mill Road corridor
12 Road corridor improvements
13 Network Capacity and Performance improvements
14 Growth related transport infrastructure
https://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2021/04/OR_20210415_AG…
re ... "When I read this article I see '30 k speed limit' and I don't care about the rest of the article, because I know that the article is written by a bureaucratic safety type person who wants a regular source of funds to pay for a large bureaucratic organisation that exists solely to waste money, do nothing to fix the problem and get in the way of a solution."
argumentum ad odium
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Spite
People tend to use the old "let's take the politics out of xxx" line only when the current govt does something they don't like. Would the same article have been written if the exact opposite of the changes had been implemented by this govt? Probably not. It's more about disagreeing with the current decisions, which is fine, but just say that.
This government is horrific, thinking that ICE cars are the way forward is utterly deluded.
Remember them in a decade when the world goes through geopolitical shakeups and we can't import fuel anymore for a fleet of vehicles that are the worst polluters in the world. The lack of support for EVs is going to bite us hard, converting most of the fleet to EVs was low hanging fruit of ways to lower our GHG emissions. As NZ has so much generation from renewables, we should be the poster child for EVs and lower carbon footprint transport. Instead we will be the laughing stock in a decade or so. And thats not even thinking about the billions we will have to pay for missing our emissions targets.
When you have a huge hilux in the driveway that you can't drive because there is no fuel, non-EV users will also start thinking about it too.
The problem is we have normalised the hugely damaging oil extraction/refining/transport industry. We have all come to believe that the BAU operation of that industry is both infinite and not harmful. And neither of those assumptions are correct in the slightest.
Such a populist douche move by this government who pays lip service to the environment and really only listens to munter urban 4WD users (see Simeons "example" of a normal Auckland car - a Hilux!) and the roading, oil and gas lobby.
From Simpson Grierson research.
Note that majority of respondents said a change in govt would not change their investment decisions and 87% cite ESG important to their decisions (you know, the "woke stuff" this govt is declaring a war on)
This year’s Report, Expanding Horizons 2023: Offshore perspectives on investment into New Zealand, reveals mixed views of opportunism, market volatility and a preference towards investment in the short term as global macroeconomic uncertainties and our own upcoming election loom large.
Key findings from the 2023 report include:
A 51% increase from 2022 in the number of investors showing near term appetite for New Zealand with close to half of investors surveyed (44%) saying they are planning to invest in New Zealand within the next 12 months
Far fewer respondents say they are considering investments in the medium to longer term, at only 29%, compared with 54% last year
14% say they wouldn’t consider NZ as an investment destination, up from 0% last year
New Zealand was ranked as the top market in Asia Pacific out of nine countries when it comes to ease of doing business and the quality of investment opportunities, with 49% saying New Zealand’s positive economic outlook, relative to other markets, is the key reason to invest
This year we see a sharp drop in positive sentiment of respondents viewing New Zealand’s government policies as very or moderately supportive of foreign investment; from 78% in 2022 to 42% this year
While 31% say they will likely increase investment into New Zealand if there is a change in government, the majority say any change will have no impact on their investment intention
87% say that Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) factors are important to their M&A investment decision making
When asked to select the three most attractive sectors, investors prioritised Consumer (54%) and Technology, Media & Telecommunications (50%). Meanwhile, renewable energy as an investment sector is a notable new focus area, with 32% of investors deeming it attractive.
Can we also have a proper debate/ more in-depth discussion on the idea that adding more roads adds to congestion and that's bad end of story? Of course we all understand that adding more roads enables more outward growth of a city, but that's not the end of the discussion. Two obvious points are: 1) This growth only happens with population growth, so if the argument is against growth full stop then the focus needs to be at the source (population increase); and 2) If accepting population growth, which is better for lifestyle/what people actually want/sustainability - more density, or more spread? I can't see where this is settled at all, despite academics constantly inferring that the science is settled.
re ... "Can we also have a proper debate/ more in-depth discussion on the idea that adding more roads adds to congestion and that's bad end of story?"
No need. It is a settled argument.
But not to you obviously. There are assuredly a plethora of FB pages that will support your view that more debate/ more in-depth discussion is required.
Population growth is a red-herring in this argument. Cities that kept building more roads kept filling up those roads even though population growth was static.
Nice strawman though. I expect it'll elicit many comments from those that believe all our woes are down to population growth rather than poor governance.
I think you are the one adding a strawman, by saying that this spread happens even with a static population. How much of the current spread in Auckland for example is due to population displacement from apartment living to house and section living, versus population growth into Auckland. The answer to that question will reveal where the strawman is.
And this still doesn't address point 2. Maybe you can cite some of these FB pages. Are the contributors as antagonistic as you are?
What's wrong with just correcting me then?
You said: "Population growth is a red-herring in this argument. Cities that kept building more roads kept filling up those roads even though population growth was static." I interpreted that in the context of my question of spread vs density as "this spread happens even with a static population".
Okay, static population growth is not the same as a static population, but I thought that was a typo from you given your claim that population growth is a red herring.
Mate, his first point is the only one you need to read. For the last 60 odd years there has been study after study, with meta studies on top that concludes more traffic lanes means more traffic.
I don't know why everyone thinks that because they drive a car they are in some way qualified to understand transport policy. I brush my teeth but I wouldn't dream of recommending the best approach to solving someone's tooth ache, that the dentist's job, the person who does this for a living.
It's the height of arrogance. If you want to know the answer to your question ask an expert (me) and accept the answer (more traffic lanes = more traffic) or go away and actually do a structured formal course where you too can trawl through the mass of evidence and write up essays confirming you have understood the studies.
There's a basic principle in transport planning called "induced demand". Its like first level paper stuff, but should answer your question if you want to actually get a simple answer. Its a very well documented, highly repeatable and easy to predict phenomenon. Cities eventually get built with similar infrastructure everywhere as they become more dense, because of the repeatability/predictability and applicability of solutions tried everywhere else. There are cities who refuse to learn and continue to suffer the consequences however (LA and Auckland are 2 of them).
The short answer is we can have population growth if we planned for it properly, like all councils are supposed to be doing, but many are abysmally failing at. And we can do that by not causing increased sprawl (new roads), but by increasing the intensification of cities and hence more well used infrastructure (from pipes to electricity to roads to subways). Once you have cities with easy transportation options (which only happens with intensification), then you have high GDP per $$ of infrastructure spend. The long answer is far too long...
Because of course this is the case right? You only need to think about infrastructure re-usability a little bit to understand that this would be the case anywhere and everywhere.
Basically if I have a street where I have 10 houses on it, it requires only a marginal increase in water/sewer/power/telecoms "pipe size" to service that same street with 100 houses on it. And each time you add another house, the amount required to support that extra house decreases compared to the last house you added. And 10,000 houses onto that same street and everyone is using the same much larger "pipes" and from a roading perspective you only have to build the same width road if you were to discourage individual cars and switch to mass transport.
https://images.app.goo.gl/tDyc2j8Wpx4TSau6A
Showing capacities of different modes.
https://images.app.goo.gl/Fn9DycUFbpNWQojE9
Showing road space required by different modes.
That's great Bobbles, and no one would argue, but we still haven't got past the very obvious: that more roads = more cars, and intensification is more efficient for infrastructure. I would like now to move onto what I originally posted: which is better for lifestyle/what people actually want/sustainability - more density, or more spread? In particular the sustainability point - large concrete buildings vs wooden/brick houses.
In a New Zealand context, opting for large concrete buildings in denser cities generally aligns more with sustainability goals compared to urban sprawl. Here's why:
-
Resource Efficiency: Dense cities allow for efficient land use, maximizing the utility of limited space. Large concrete buildings can accommodate more people or activities in a smaller footprint, reducing the overall consumption of land, energy, and resources compared to spreading development over a larger area in urban sprawl.
-
Transportation: Dense urban areas encourage walking, cycling, and the use of public transportation due to proximity to amenities and workplaces. This reduces reliance on private cars, decreasing greenhouse gas emissions and congestion. Urban sprawl typically necessitates longer commutes, leading to higher fuel consumption and pollution.
-
Infrastructure Costs: Concentrating development in denser cities reduces the need for extending infrastructure such as roads, water supply, and sewage systems over vast areas, which can be costly and environmentally impactful. Urban sprawl often requires the expansion of infrastructure, contributing to higher maintenance costs and resource consumption.
-
Preservation of Natural Spaces: Compact development preserves more green spaces and agricultural land on the outskirts of cities. It helps protect ecosystems, biodiversity, and natural habitats that are vital for ecological balance and human well-being. Urban sprawl often leads to the fragmentation and loss of such areas.
-
Community Connectivity: Denser cities foster vibrant communities by promoting social interaction and cultural exchange. Residents have easier access to amenities like schools, healthcare facilities, and recreational areas. Urban sprawl can lead to the development of isolated, car-dependent neighborhoods, potentially weakening community bonds and increasing social inequities.
-
Resilience to Climate Change: Concentrated development allows for more efficient implementation of sustainable practices such as renewable energy integration, green building designs, and stormwater management systems. This resilience is crucial in the face of climate change impacts such as extreme weather events and rising sea levels.
While there may be challenges associated with dense urban development, such as increased demand on infrastructure and higher property costs, careful urban planning and sustainable design principles can mitigate these issues. Overall, prioritizing denser cities with large concrete buildings promotes a more sustainable future for New Zealand.
When comparing the carbon cost of large apartment blocks versus timber homes built on concrete foundations, several factors come into play. Here's a breakdown of the carbon implications for each:
-
Large Apartment Blocks (Concrete Construction):
- Concrete production is a significant source of carbon emissions due to the energy-intensive process of cement manufacturing and the release of carbon dioxide during curing (a chemical reaction).
- Large apartment blocks typically require substantial amounts of concrete for their construction, contributing to higher embodied carbon emissions.
- However, once constructed, apartment buildings can achieve economies of scale in energy usage per resident, especially in heating and cooling, compared to individual homes.
-
Timber Homes (with Concrete Foundations):
- Timber construction generally has a lower carbon footprint compared to concrete construction. Wood is a renewable resource that stores carbon absorbed during the growth of trees.
- However, even timber homes may have concrete foundations, which contribute to their overall carbon footprint.
- The carbon footprint of timber homes can vary depending on factors such as the source of timber (sustainably managed forests vs. deforestation) and transportation distances.
- Timber homes can have additional environmental benefits, such as promoting sustainable forestry practices and supporting the timber industry, which can sequester carbon through reforestation efforts.
When considering the carbon cost, it's essential to assess the entire lifecycle of both building types, including construction, operation, maintenance, and eventual demolition or deconstruction. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodologies are commonly used to quantify these carbon impacts comprehensively.
Research studies and industry reports can provide more specific data on the carbon footprint of different construction materials and building types. Organizations such as the New Zealand Green Building Council (NZGBC) and research institutions may offer valuable insights into the environmental performance of various building methods and materials, aiding in informed decision-making regarding sustainable construction practices.
While concrete remains a prevalent construction material due to its durability and structural properties, advancements in low-carbon concrete formulations and alternative construction techniques, coupled with sustainable forestry practices for timber production, can help reduce the carbon impact of building construction and contribute to a more sustainable built environment.
Basically you are asking questions that have been asked a lot before and answerd. ChatGPT is your friend.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/kiwirail-reveals-what-led-to-cook-strait-…
Well, that's going to cost us way more in the long run . Hopefully they can see sense before the contract is cancelled.
Supidest decision ever. I would suggest anything under about $5b for 2 new ports, 2 new boats and all the associated infrastructure is pretty good value. National have abandoned a critical infrastructure build with no plan of how to replace that critical infrastructure. They could have simply put more controls on the project or different governance, instead they left us with infrastructure falling to pieces and when it kills someone they will probably blame it on someone else. Didn't they claim to be the party of delivery? Yet all they are delivering is throwing babies out with bathwater.
Most people also have a self centered view. Which traditionally has harmed minorities. The choice to remove access and cut disabled people out of society was a majority view and continues today in large part with eugenic policies pushed forward to further exclusion and systemic ostracism & discrimination (see most councils transport plans). Most the majority has very little understanding of others and they do not consider the essential needs of others to live when they vote. They primarily vote along the us vs them lines (even regardless of impact to their own family as the us vs them simplification cognitive bias can be even stronger) following that they vote for their own desires and ideological luxuries that do not impact living needs.
Very very few people look to the living needs of others & community as a whole and even fewer vote with game theory in mind. Instead they think that if a majority of people get what they vote then those who miss out on living needs must just not therefore deserve to live. See most policies of the Green Party, Act etc as they have eugenic policy priorities. Hence councils with green party supporters in ranks and green MPs are the LEAST ACCESSIBLE cities and cause the greatest harm to the most vulnerable minorities (even though a minority may number 25% of population & they regularly suffer death from the effects of loss of access greater than 4x that of any other population group it does not matter to those voting).
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.