The real danger with this three months at a time approach to big issues is that three months at a time reinforces very short term thinking at the expense of taking time to think through and research issues and to ensure there is full opportunity for public and expert input. It encourages the continued abuse of the urgency process.
In short, this approach is very likely to be anti-democratic.
Fair comment, Andrew. I wonder if, in a future quarter, we'll see goals such as: 'develop a long-term strategic plan for the country through a deliberative democratic process.' Likely or unlikely?
Don't see it as likely. The current government is too certain that its reckons already show the one and true way.
Although it could be good to see more use of citizens assembly -type mechanism for such necessities as working out an effective way/ways for addressing different health disparities - eg assemblies of Pasifica, Māori, disabled.
I wouldn’t underestimate the internal pressure this will put on ministers and senior civil servants to deliver. Nothing like a deadline or regular ‘call up’ date to drive action…rather than time just dragging on. I suspect this is as much the reason Luxon is doing this, as PR.
Words and deeds. The short termism of Luxon’s plans gives him easy wins to go to voters. However, what it fails to do is address what the country needs as opposed to what the government wants for its donors and supporters. The country needs a radical review and change to its ineffective tax policies. The government wants tax reductions for the rich, landlords and big business owners. What the country needs is a serious review of our immigration policies and many more affordable & state houses. What the government wants is for more landlords to become rich as they will vote for National. What the country needs is less inequality and poverty. And so on. So far lots of words and cancellations of Labour introduced policies but very little in the way of deeds as I have outlined. That is why his 100 day thus and 90 day that are fluff and hot air.
Fair and critical comments, thanks Tony! In particular, inequality and poverty need urgent attention. Inequality has become a mainstream concern internationally, and not just a 'left' issue, and so any government should be doing something about it. It puts me in mind to examine carefully how Willis's first budget will address the poverty indicators. GD
"But is it anything more than a PR exercise?" He says it is isn't. Why would he lie?
"Getting back to the 36 points: the Luxon government will presumably continue to issue quarterly to-do lists – with items which they know in advance can be ticked off over the subsequent three months" Grant CYNIC. So, we have a a governing body telling us its planned goal setting as opposed to secretive reaction from behind closed doors and , apparently this is too "corporate" for the lefty academics. It seems to me that he is cutting through the BS that must be standard behaviour when a bunch of over-zealous jaw flappers arrive at a parliament such as ours. Control, control, leadership, leadership. Makes sense to me. Good luck to them, I say.
I agree that a 3-month set of goals is a good management measure and will tend towards transparency - insofar as transparency in such governmental matters is possible. It doesn’t of itself preclude longer-term planning.
Good point, Greg. If I recall rightly, the need to overcome inertia was one reason behind the 4th Labour government's State Sector Act.
The real danger with this three months at a time approach to big issues is that three months at a time reinforces very short term thinking at the expense of taking time to think through and research issues and to ensure there is full opportunity for public and expert input. It encourages the continued abuse of the urgency process.
In short, this approach is very likely to be anti-democratic.
Fair comment, Andrew. I wonder if, in a future quarter, we'll see goals such as: 'develop a long-term strategic plan for the country through a deliberative democratic process.' Likely or unlikely?
Don't see it as likely. The current government is too certain that its reckons already show the one and true way.
Although it could be good to see more use of citizens assembly -type mechanism for such necessities as working out an effective way/ways for addressing different health disparities - eg assemblies of Pasifica, Māori, disabled.
I wouldn’t underestimate the internal pressure this will put on ministers and senior civil servants to deliver. Nothing like a deadline or regular ‘call up’ date to drive action…rather than time just dragging on. I suspect this is as much the reason Luxon is doing this, as PR.
Words and deeds. The short termism of Luxon’s plans gives him easy wins to go to voters. However, what it fails to do is address what the country needs as opposed to what the government wants for its donors and supporters. The country needs a radical review and change to its ineffective tax policies. The government wants tax reductions for the rich, landlords and big business owners. What the country needs is a serious review of our immigration policies and many more affordable & state houses. What the government wants is for more landlords to become rich as they will vote for National. What the country needs is less inequality and poverty. And so on. So far lots of words and cancellations of Labour introduced policies but very little in the way of deeds as I have outlined. That is why his 100 day thus and 90 day that are fluff and hot air.
Fair and critical comments, thanks Tony! In particular, inequality and poverty need urgent attention. Inequality has become a mainstream concern internationally, and not just a 'left' issue, and so any government should be doing something about it. It puts me in mind to examine carefully how Willis's first budget will address the poverty indicators. GD
"But is it anything more than a PR exercise?" He says it is isn't. Why would he lie?
"Getting back to the 36 points: the Luxon government will presumably continue to issue quarterly to-do lists – with items which they know in advance can be ticked off over the subsequent three months" Grant CYNIC. So, we have a a governing body telling us its planned goal setting as opposed to secretive reaction from behind closed doors and , apparently this is too "corporate" for the lefty academics. It seems to me that he is cutting through the BS that must be standard behaviour when a bunch of over-zealous jaw flappers arrive at a parliament such as ours. Control, control, leadership, leadership. Makes sense to me. Good luck to them, I say.
It's not 'too corporate' for me, Bruce. In a way I quite like it, as it gives me something to write about.
I agree that a 3-month set of goals is a good management measure and will tend towards transparency - insofar as transparency in such governmental matters is possible. It doesn’t of itself preclude longer-term planning.