National’s anti-Public Transport message

Written By: - Date published: 11:00 am, October 19th, 2010 - 16 comments
Categories: auckland supercity, bill english, national, public transport - Tags:

Different voice, same message: instead of Stephen Joyce or John Key, we had Bill English on Friday saying that they don’t have any money for Public Transport.  Just money for roads.  They’ve been forced to commit to $1.5billion of ongoing Auckland rail projects (mainly because they refused to allow it to be funded through a regional fuel tax), and that’s all it’s going to get, thank-you.

You’ll have to listen through Blinglish’s lies about his tax swindle being revenue neutral, even before people stopped spending money, resulting in the GST take not rising as expected.  They’re not spending money as they don’t have it; having lost their jobs or not had pay rises as prices and rents rise.  The Public Transport bashing starts at about 17 minutes.

Far from reading the tea leaves of the Local Government elections with their massive vote for public transport; he complains about rail’s lack of return on investment – as though we got money back from the billions we spend on roads.

He says that passenger rail only works in high-rise cities like Hong Kong, despite it being highly successful across Europe.  And that you only encourage people to live in denser housing if they have ways to get around.

He says that Auckland will have to pay for any rail project through rates, despite the fact they pay at least 1/3 of New Zealand’s taxes.

He writes off plans as ‘uneconomic’ without any thought to how much is saved by not having a million people sitting in their cars, burning fuel, not working, waiting to get where they are going.

But then we should be used to National’s lack of a plan; just going along with their favourite lobby groups.  Road haulage is a definite favourite, that has resulted in the cancellation of Labour’s coastal shipping policies, which were great for the environment and local industry, and reduced the pressure on the roads for ordinary New Zealanders.  It has allowed bigger trucks on our roads, wearing them out much faster and making them less safe.  And it will continue to result in public transport being denied at the expense of proven uneconomic roading projects like Wellsford-Puhoi and Transmission Gully.

16 comments on “National’s anti-Public Transport message ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. randal 1
    19 October 2010 at 11:50 am

    this does not surprise me.
    both michelle boag and paul henry have made public proclamations about never being seen on public transport.
    how long do we have to wait beofre they ban public toilets too?

    • Alwyn 1.1
      19 October 2010 at 2:25 pm

      Oh well. I can remember our last Prime Minister, what was her name again, saying that the only way she was going to travel was in chauffered limousines and that there was no way she was going to travel in a taxi.
      She was also the one who thought the taxpayer should provide her with a private plane so that she wouldn’t have to travel with commoners.

      • Irascible 1.1.1
        19 October 2010 at 3:16 pm

        I see your “memory” has an out of reality and fact element to it. Strange that these false memories become a fact in the minds of individuals on the crosby-textor meme supply list.

        • Alwyn 1.1.1.1
          19 October 2010 at 9:00 pm

          My my, we are touchy aren’t we.
          The plane reference was to her comments after the mad dash from Waimate to Christchurch.
          The Herald quotes her on July 22 2004 as saying “In other countries the Prime Minister would have a plane that flew them there” and “I shouldn’t be put in a position where people are complaining about the mode of transport” and “In other countries people are whisked from place to place by dedicated transport, air and road”
          If that was not saying I should have my own plane I don’t know what it is.
          The Taxi reference was to the fuss over the cost of the Crown fleet of Limo’s. I can’t find an online quote but it was after a Taxi company quoted what it would cost to provide 24 hour service to ministers.

          • Bunji 1.1.1.1.1
            19 October 2010 at 9:21 pm

            I think saying “I should have my own plane” would be saying it a lot more clearly. I think she was in fact not saying anything of the sort however, more something along the lines of “stop fussing about something small and inconsequential, and count yourself lucky that I’m not a high-roller that insists on expensive means of transport”. So quite the reverse really.

            Indeed Helen was famously frugal personally. She wasn’t one for having a suite of secuirty personnel – often dispensing with them entirely whilst John Key takes 4 to hawaii for holiday – as though anyone there would know he was important except for the guards…

          • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.1.2
            19 October 2010 at 10:02 pm

            There you go

            Personally, I’d say that she was probably being sarcastic and the journos, being useless, didn’t pick up on that. As for any minister taking a taxi on ministerial business…no, not going to happen, this is because ministers need the room that the limousines provide and they need the reliability.

          • Vicky32 1.1.1.1.3
            20 October 2010 at 3:55 pm

            Excuse me not being too eager to take your word for it, it would really help if you would provide links! AFAIK, she was not that kind of person – although if you mean the famous incident where a local NACT supporter, a woman with the same name as me – shame, looked out her farm gate and pinged the PM for speeding, starting a beat up that people like you still obsess about – said incident *is* simply a beat up!
            By the way, as I have said before and will say again, plurals don’t take apostrophes even if they *do* end in a vowel, it’s ‘limos’, not limo’s’. To judge by your name, you are plenty old enough to have learned that at school, as I did!
            Deb

      • Vicky32 1.1.2
        19 October 2010 at 4:00 pm

        Strange, I don’t remember her saying any of this – and I am certain that the MSM would have made a meal of it if she had!
        Deb 😛

      • bbfloyd 1.1.3
        19 October 2010 at 5:10 pm

        Alwyn.. do you dream up this crap all by yourself, or do you have help? maybe with the bigger words?

        • Jim MacDonald 1.1.3.1
          19 October 2010 at 5:58 pm

          I think what was meant might have been – the last (ie previous) National Prime Minister, i.e. Jenny Shipley ?

  2. Jeremy Harris 2
    19 October 2010 at 12:24 pm

    When the Green Party and Libertarians are against projects (as they are in the cases of Transmission Gully and Puhoi to Wellsford) they have to be very stupid ideas…

  3. Uroskin 3
    19 October 2010 at 1:34 pm

    I see Michelle Boag every day on the Waiheke ferry. But then Fullers can hardly be called “public transport” since it enjoys a priovate monopoly on the Waiheke route (hence the stretch of water across the Waitemata is the second most expensive in the world)

  4. Armchair Critic 4
    19 October 2010 at 10:01 pm

    They are only against it because they can’t see how to make money of it, personally.
    You will know they’ve worked it out when they steal the language around the subject. The first sign could be rebranding it as “mass transit”, rather than “public transport”

  5. Jim MacDonald 5
    19 October 2010 at 10:18 pm

    ~ ~ Newsflash ~ ~

    Public transport under National:
    Jonkey still looking for Joycestick to get into gear

    : – )

Links to post