1: Parties promise policies and decisions and implementations that they believe will both retain and attract voters
2: Any government is going to have to a be coalition so all that is expressed and claimed will be undertaken in point 1 is in fact only aspiration, not necessarily deliverable, nor indeed will define the actions of any government that is elected.
This gives rise to a third point whereby, as I have noted, we are in a situation of electoral blocs (almost certainly now, pre-determined blocs) that are in many ways the equivalent to two big parties broken into a series of major/minor and minor parties that compete internally with each other.
In such a context, the detail of policies and proposals being released and articulated by the 7 parties with a chance of becoming part of government strain the limits of credibility and credulity as to what can and will be implemented, let alone the cost of funding of such proposals given the reality of the New Zealand economy and the type of society we are.
In other words, most people if voting across any of the multitude of policy proposals made by parties will be disappointed. We could suggest that what’s on the party policy can will most likely not end up being served (as claimed it will be) on the plate of any coalition government dinner.
So, what to do?
A possible suggestion is the KISS strategy: keep it simple, stupid!
Every party should be limited to a small number of big-picture electoral statements, articulated in no more than 100 words, preferably under 50:
1: What is their vision for New Zealand and their articulation of values of and for a New Zealander? [i.e. Party X stands for this vision of New Zealand and believes these are the core values of and for a New Zealander… this includes their position on Te Tiriti O Waitangi|Treaty of Waitangi]
2: What is their economic statement [the New Zealand economy needs to be…] and their statement regarding productivity?
3: What is their concept of the welfare state, its role and function [this includes health, housing and superannuation] and how is it to funded?
4: What is their energy strategy and how is it to be funded?
5: What is their defence strategy and how is it to be funded?
6: What is their environmental strategy and how is it to be funded?
7: What is their education strategy and how is it to be funded?
8. what is their infrastructure strategy and how is it to be funded?
They are limited to big-picture overview thinking and to having to address the funding mechanism behind any strategy.
No particular policies or policy details should be part of any strategy; everything is to be kept at the level of big-picture party vision and identity.
The voters then have a clear sense of not only each party’s strategy but also how well their strategy and funding align with any possible coalition partner.
As for particular policies and their details, these are to be worked out once in power, as a coalition, not proclaimed before they get into government as often undeliverable or undelivered vote-buying. It makes a coalition a working coalition, not a bloc-party internal competition, once in power.
Would this improve things in terms of governmental action and outcome?
It might sharpen the minds of parties once in power, as well as when in opposition. Possible coalitions need to be able to articulate commonalities in vision, strategy and funding whereby the difference are nuances and cohorts within a bloc.
Coalition blocs also need to express a commonality in regard to a social contract they enact and a social covenant they facilitate. If this proves difficult or impossible, to either articulate or maintain, then the nation itself is in serious trouble, socially, economically and culturally.
I realise this is unlikely to be agreed to by any party or the electoral commission, let alone the broadcasters and media seeking disputation and what is undeliverable detail pre-election. But if what is on the party can is not on the coalition government dinner plate then voters understandably feel dismissed, duped and disconsolate.
It could be argued that I am in-fact arguing for a return to two-party politics. The thing is, in a two-party system, the policies promised had a far greater chance of being implemented and voters knew and understood (hopefully) what was going to be delivered by a government, and how and by what types of funding decisions. My proposal accepts the reality of MMP but also attempts to articulate the realities of our pre-determined party-bloc system and how its limitations for voters might in fact be moderated. It is also suggested that alongside this model, New Zealand shifts to a four or five-year parliamentary term, to enable proper, coherent coalition policy to be articulated and implemented as a coalition once in government.
Perhaps electoral reform will result in governmental reform?
If not, then all we can suggest is caveat emptor and when what is then delivered on the dinner plate, hold your nose and try to eat it…
Mike Grimshaw (PhD Otago) is associate professor in sociology at the University of Canterbury. This article was sourced HERE
In such a context, the detail of policies and proposals being released and articulated by the 7 parties with a chance of becoming part of government strain the limits of credibility and credulity as to what can and will be implemented, let alone the cost of funding of such proposals given the reality of the New Zealand economy and the type of society we are.
In other words, most people if voting across any of the multitude of policy proposals made by parties will be disappointed. We could suggest that what’s on the party policy can will most likely not end up being served (as claimed it will be) on the plate of any coalition government dinner.
So, what to do?
A possible suggestion is the KISS strategy: keep it simple, stupid!
Every party should be limited to a small number of big-picture electoral statements, articulated in no more than 100 words, preferably under 50:
1: What is their vision for New Zealand and their articulation of values of and for a New Zealander? [i.e. Party X stands for this vision of New Zealand and believes these are the core values of and for a New Zealander… this includes their position on Te Tiriti O Waitangi|Treaty of Waitangi]
2: What is their economic statement [the New Zealand economy needs to be…] and their statement regarding productivity?
3: What is their concept of the welfare state, its role and function [this includes health, housing and superannuation] and how is it to funded?
4: What is their energy strategy and how is it to be funded?
5: What is their defence strategy and how is it to be funded?
6: What is their environmental strategy and how is it to be funded?
7: What is their education strategy and how is it to be funded?
8. what is their infrastructure strategy and how is it to be funded?
They are limited to big-picture overview thinking and to having to address the funding mechanism behind any strategy.
No particular policies or policy details should be part of any strategy; everything is to be kept at the level of big-picture party vision and identity.
The voters then have a clear sense of not only each party’s strategy but also how well their strategy and funding align with any possible coalition partner.
As for particular policies and their details, these are to be worked out once in power, as a coalition, not proclaimed before they get into government as often undeliverable or undelivered vote-buying. It makes a coalition a working coalition, not a bloc-party internal competition, once in power.
Would this improve things in terms of governmental action and outcome?
It might sharpen the minds of parties once in power, as well as when in opposition. Possible coalitions need to be able to articulate commonalities in vision, strategy and funding whereby the difference are nuances and cohorts within a bloc.
Coalition blocs also need to express a commonality in regard to a social contract they enact and a social covenant they facilitate. If this proves difficult or impossible, to either articulate or maintain, then the nation itself is in serious trouble, socially, economically and culturally.
I realise this is unlikely to be agreed to by any party or the electoral commission, let alone the broadcasters and media seeking disputation and what is undeliverable detail pre-election. But if what is on the party can is not on the coalition government dinner plate then voters understandably feel dismissed, duped and disconsolate.
It could be argued that I am in-fact arguing for a return to two-party politics. The thing is, in a two-party system, the policies promised had a far greater chance of being implemented and voters knew and understood (hopefully) what was going to be delivered by a government, and how and by what types of funding decisions. My proposal accepts the reality of MMP but also attempts to articulate the realities of our pre-determined party-bloc system and how its limitations for voters might in fact be moderated. It is also suggested that alongside this model, New Zealand shifts to a four or five-year parliamentary term, to enable proper, coherent coalition policy to be articulated and implemented as a coalition once in government.
Perhaps electoral reform will result in governmental reform?
If not, then all we can suggest is caveat emptor and when what is then delivered on the dinner plate, hold your nose and try to eat it…
Mike Grimshaw (PhD Otago) is associate professor in sociology at the University of Canterbury. This article was sourced HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.