I’m wanting to see more well-rounded policy that can be supported by the major parties regardless of ‘who floated it’, hoping for better enduring government rather than this ‘rip and replace’ bullshit.
Obviously with the right wong think tanks invading, this is nothing more than a thought exercise, but i reckon its worth exploring.
My heretical angle is significantly reducing thenterms that parties have in power - not extending to 4 years but instead reducing to 1 or 18 months. The thinking being: If you cant get anything done because the only work one is interested in doing is ideological nonsense that caters to a narrow part of society maybe it shouldn’t get off the ground in the first place?
The issue with that suggestion is, it takes much less time to throw out what the last government was doing than to actually do something yourself.
The best way to stop “rip and replace” is to stop fucking up, in my view. The ferry project is a classic example, set to be over a billion dollars over budget, and the boats are only 550 mil each, and the boats were absolute monsters, far bigger than we needed.
Three waters is another example, if Labour had dropped the co-governance aspect, the project would likely have gone ahead without too much controversy, but they pushed ahead with a wildly unpopular proposal, and it was a big part of why they lost the election.
The problem with not fucking up is we have two conflicting ideologiea (or, a bit different if we’re gettig technical), so one man’s trash policy is anothers treasure. How can that be anythibg other than a fuck up?
One person’s trash policy is not another’s treasure, sometimes it’s simply a failure.
the only reason co governance was controversial is because farmers are too greedy and the population is too racist.