100 Day Progress: 3 out of 10
3 out of 10.
For all the bluster and praise the media have lavished on the new Government, our summation of the 100 days is it deserves 3 out of 10.
Yes, it is just the start of their first term in Government after 9 years in opposition, and no one is denying the fantastic impact Jacinda’s emergence has had on politics in our country. But, and this is a big but, all we are focusing on is policy and it seems in this new age of tabloid media, policy takes a back seat to smiles and barbeques. John Key was Mister Relatable, Teflon john, and now Jacinda Ardern has given a spark to young and old alike, a gut-felt optimism that progress is imminent. But when we dig beneath the surface, at the gears that drive these bold promises that Labour have made, there is a disconnect. The policy simply does not match up with the ideals.
For every step forward the new Government has made, there is too much treading water or even walking backwards. We saw hope in the Zero Carbon Act and the wider climate change policies, but these do not offset backtracking on saving our waterways, broken promises on cannabis reform, or the farce that is the tax working group. Again, their approach to mental health and child poverty falls short – in part related to an inability to address overly-generous superannuation or confront the drivers of the housing crisis.
Our 100-day plan discusses in detail each of the 17 policies released, and how it compares to best practice, evidenced-based policies. Our assessment is strictly about whether the policies announced are substantive, will likely deliver what their promotors assert, and will progress the state of well-being of New Zealanders. It’s important to differentiate policy substance from any popular public appeal that a policy, a policy announcement or indeed the mana of the messenger – might engender.
In response to the 100 day plan, TOP’s interim leader Dr Gareth Morgan says “ the rationale for post-election optimism was ephemeral, flimsy. We are so content, fat, comfortable and complacent that we don’t give a rat’s ass about inequality, let alone productivity and an economy that is both resilient and fulfils its potential”
-
Grant Wrathall commented 2018-03-16 18:03:59 +13003 out of 10 is very generous, is early days, but closer to 1 than 3.. But hey, we only see what the media reports. -
David George commented 2018-02-26 11:54:29 +1300Hmmm looking at the demography over these responses- looks like Gareth has successfully shunted “the screaming females” in the party and is left with the usual…
-
Peter Poortman commented 2018-02-23 19:11:05 +1300Good analysis. And I totally agree with Len and Oliver’s comments.
Rather than waiting until the next election year, you need to get in the public’s face regularly.
For example get a short version of this item into the main newspapers – by advertisement if necessary.
And maybe instead of Labour’s achievement (or not), put your rating of the policy (Eg. 2/10).
Showing a “[tick] Done” at the start of each policy will be misleading to those who only give it a quick glance. -
Len Houwers commented 2018-02-23 15:56:13 +1300Preaching mainly to the converted I suspect. The debate is already framed by the 10 sec soundbite from uncritical journalists who are happy to print or broadcast the spin doctors’ message and the ability to influence is already lost. You are offering critical analysis that bypasses both interest and general capability of the general populace to understand.
Not sure what the answer is. Politics only interests people when it is immediate and personal. TOP needs a media strategy to reframe the issues to resonate with the groups who are still being ignored. “Winter heating subsidy bypasses the poor and young families in favour of the old and rich”, “No money for early childhood education” (or words to that effect). Once you have the attention of the disaffected/ ignored it is easier to elaborate and create more visible platforms for debate. Who knows, Seven Sharp and The Project might actually turn their attention to real stories if there is enough human drama in them -
Oliver Krollmann commented 2018-02-13 11:25:35 +1300Great analysis. My wife and I just read it aloud to each other, taking turns, and discussed it. Good stuff! It would however benefit from another proof-reading – there are quite a few typos and grammatical errors as well as complex and hard-to-understand sentences in it that make it look a bit like it was done by an academic in a rush with a turned-off spell and grammar checker. We can do better in that area, I’m sure.
Let’s keep up these analyses – it’s easy to lose focus and forget election promises with everything that’s going on among all this bad weather ;-) -
Oliver Krollmann followed this page 2018-02-12 18:03:53 +1300
-
Jeff Cameron commented 2018-02-12 08:49:05 +1300Yep, so next election win some electorates and get your bums on seats that make a difference!
