Written By: - Date published: 10:58 am, January 30th, 2008 - 78 comments
Categories: labour -
Tags: helen clark, labour, policy
I haven’t had time to do a thorough analysis of Clark’s speech but from a quick once-over I can say with certainty that it is underwhelming. Let’s face it, this was her chance to take the front foot and show the government had a policy agenda fit for a new term. Instead her speech is a confusion of values-framing “vision” statements and bureaucratic jargon such as:
This strategy will focus on the retention of skills in the workplace, and on better ways of measuring and valuing skills, and identifying the demands for skills and how to increase supply. While the strategy will apply across the entire workforce, there is a particular strand of work in the programme which ensures that young people who are already in work are a primary target.
Now don’t get me wrong, there are some very good ideas behind this but phrases like “there is a particular strand of work in the programme” don’t inspire an audience. In fact I’m not even entirely sure what that means and I can’t see it inspiring voters with its bold “vision”. And that’s Labour’s problem. They’ve got good policy and are taking the country in the right direction (albeit more slowly than I would like them to) but they fail to communicate that to ordinary New Zealanders. They are very good governors but increasingly they are looking like they are all substance and no style. Ironically they are facing an opposition that is totally the reverse.
It’s instructional to see how the media are treating the speech. They’ve latched onto the only concrete soundbite they can get from it and are running it as “Labour to lift school leaving age” and “Clark vows to keep under-18s in education” and even then are obviously having difficulty subbing it down to a sharp and meaningful headline.
I can only lament the fact that this was an opportunity to release a bold and significant policy which could be encapsulated in a few words. There was a rumour around the traps that Clark was to announce a first home buyer policy. Can you imagine the headlines? “Labour helps young familes into housing” “Labour moves on housing crisis” etc. Alas, it was not to be. But something like that would’ve set the agenda for the next year and made sure people knew what Labour stands for. It’s well known that, on top of everything else she does, Clark writes her own speeches and takes little advice on them. I would suggest she stops doing so.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Why are you guys still posting? This blog has zero credibility, in case nobody hasn’t mentioned it already.
And yet you still feel the need to comment her, Ben. Slow morning?
“Why are you guys still posting? This blog has zero credibility, in case nobody hasn’t mentioned it already.”
Not from where I’m sitting. The traffic just keeps increasing. Some big jumps recently as the trolls (like you?) have been kicked out.
Personally I wish it’d stop growing so fast. But I’m sure the posters would disagree with me.
Lynn
Burt – I wasn’t thrilled with the design of WFF, but I think that the administrative nightmare that would occur if you tried to apply a similar regime to the taxating system would be enought to make the baby Jesus cry. If national could come up with an alternative system that benefited families with children, i’d be all for it. Ideally it would see them not pay the tax in the first place, but how many more tax codes would we need :p !!
The term election bribe…I hate to say it, but people can have short memories. The more entrenched voters won’t sway, so election year promises are made to entice the swing vote – ‘election bribes’ are endemic to the system, as long as our government’s accountability to us is on a three-yearly basis. That’s not a critique of Labour, National or anyone – it’s a problem inherent with Liberal Representative democracy.
Not something I feel up to tackling right now, but one thought – without ‘election bribes’ how would you expect a Government to operate? Evenly spread out its policy releases, so the voters have forgotten about some of them, and they lose election ‘momentum’? They all do it because they have to, and I believe it’s one of the leading causes of disenchantment with politicials and government in general. *caugh* socialist participatory democracy *caugh*
“Not from where I’m sitting. The traffic just keeps increasing. Some big jumps recently as the trolls (like you?) have been kicked out.”
Dear Lynn
I seem to have that affect on blogs,just ask David Farrar as I helped put his blog at the number one slot.
Cough,cough. Excuse me madam. I am a miner for a heart of gold and certainly no egotistical martyr belonging too the Key Klark Klan.
Cheers big ears.
[lprent - junk warning - this is probably dad4justice under yet another alias. It is in his usual IP range and with the usual comment type.]
Matt I believe it’s spelled “cough” but I agree completely but let’s face it. Snowball. Hell. Chance.
Oh crap I can’t believe I got pulled up on that one. Y’know some words you got wrong as a kid and are just never sure about? I’m hoping that was one of them!
Sigh, if only everyone knew what it really meant.
HI LYNN….YES ITSA LOADA CRAP…HC DIDNT EVEN GET OUT OF FIRST GEAR AND ALL THESE BRAIBBOXES ARE CARRYING ON LIKE A BUNCH OF BEFUDDLED FLEAS…IS THIS PARTICULAR CAPCHA THERE TO CATCH OUT THE DUMMIES? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA