Politics and platitudes
Politicians of all stripes love platitudes, but that's not leading us anywhere but backwards
Last month Rod Oram coined, I think, the phrase “pavlova of platitudes” when discussing the coalition government’s “rip, shit, and bust” approach to economic development.
The platitudes include Aotearoa’s many economic and environmental advantages, the inventiveness of our people, and our connections to the rest of the world. But government statements and actions, he highlighted, don’t seem to be able to build on these.
Oram noted that the new government’s focus on fiscal discipline and deregulation has been tried several times before and failed. In addition, he pointed out that they seem to be ignoring the significant social, economic, political, and environmental changes that have occurred over the last 40 years, and the changes that are still to come.
In a similar vein, Peter Griffin on BusinessDesk (subscription required) highlighted the lack of a government plan for science and technology.
The government should be more in the game, rather than getting out of the way
“Cutting red tape” and “reducing bureaucracy” are common refrains around the world. But woefully simplistic. The Roosevelt Institute in the US suggests a more progressive way to improve regulatory settings to stimulate a green transition.
“… cutting what is perceived as “red tape” for the transition may mean harming the same communities that experience the burden of the existing fossil energy system. When projects—even clean energy projects—do not go through robust environmental review, they risk having negative impacts such as air or water pollution, economic burden, or biodiversity loss.”
Better coordination and planning, along with improved community participation are essential, in their view, for a sustainable energy transition. And for any other large government initiatives too.
Internationally, there is also growing demand and support from business and other groups for governments to be more ambitious, active, and forward thinking, rather than just telling them to get out of the way.
In the UK, business leaders are publicly chastising the government for sluggishness.
“We are ready to invest, but we need your leadership and commitment to the green economy—now, more than ever.” Aldersgate Group, July 2023
A "green economy" coalition of trade unions, businesses, NGOs, UN agencies and citizen’s groups is also pressuring UK political parties to develop an ambitious “green” industrial policy.
“Governments have a vital role to play in the delivery of all of these [good policy, commitment, and significant investment], and if our legislators don’t lead the way with ambition and political will, green economies simply won’t happen.” Green Economy Coalition
They highlight the US’s Inflation Reduction Act and the European Green Deal, which not only provided huge government investment (with inevitable pet projects and pork barrelling) but helped unlock private sector investment too.
What’s essential, say the Green Economy Coalition, is not just government investment and regulatory change, but long-term policy consistency. The UK business sector is ready to invest they write, but there needs to be political certainty.
“… flip-flopping on policies and sending mixed signals can only undermine business confidence, slow investment and extend the misery of many citizens. This risks creating a future with costs unfairly borne by the most marginal and businesses seemingly insulated from contributing – one where the profits are privatised but the costs are borne by the public.”
Clear communication is also needed. The growing protests of the European Green Deal (or aspects of it) in several European countries reflects, in part, poor communication.
“But while well-intentioned, EU regulations have inadvertently fostered a perception of excessive bureaucracy and regulatory burdens for both citizens and companies. Instead of emphasizing the potential benefits of transitioning to a green economy through incentive schemes and initiatives, the Brussels policy machine has churned out a slew of fresh regulations and directives, triggering an unintended backlash that risks undermining Europe’s very own climate agenda from within.”
Governments are becoming more interventionist, especially regarding industrial policy. This is to both protect some sectors as well as stimulate innovation. A combination of economic recovery post-pandemic, climate change concerns, and geopolitical competition & conflict are helping drive this.
But such interventions can be myopic and ill-informed. Supporting so-called “green growth” while continuing to rely on existing economic models, resource exploitation and environmental degradation isn’t long-term sustainable thinking.
It has to be well informed intervention.
Sausage rolls not pavlovas
Pavlova of platitudes is a great phrase, and one that can be applied to previous governments’ short-term managerial thinking. Every new government seems to be “ambitious for New Zealand” (another pavlovian platitude), but lack a long -term vision and strategy, and just tinker around the edges.
My interpretation of Oram’s “pavlova of platitudes” is that it implies sweet insubstantial statements and promises. But I think it oversells the appeal. There is nothing especially delectable or tempting about what current and previous NZ government’s routinely trot out.
I’d go for “Sausage roll rhetoric.” The staple stolid government fare (at least in Aotearoa). Readily reheated and jazzed up, from time to time, with a chutney rather than tomato sauce.
There’s going to be no simplistic “win-win” outcomes, so sticking with platitudes and old thinking isn’t going to help.
Good political leadership now is realising that a better future comes not from out-of-date ideologies and tired phrases, but from working with (not just consulting) diverse interests who have a shared goal of a better future for the many, and a commitment to achieving it though systemic and difficult changes. A sugary or fatty diet of platitudes isn’t healthy for anyone.