Being anti for the sake of it
There are no superheroes in our adversarial political system, says Shamubeel Eaqub.
There is a political spectrum. Our priorities differ. We often identify as left or right, as liberal or conservative, as nationalistic or open.
In the media, and perhaps more in social media, it seems like political viewpoints are becoming more polarised.
But I am not so sure. I don’t think voters’ values have shifted as much as politics, which has become adversarial as a rule.
Over recent weeks we have seen political wrangling on some big topics. And the political poles were readily apparent.
Revelations of leaky hospital buildings and worse. The previous Government was blamed: nine long years of neglect.
I still don’t understand how the problem was known but not disclosed in annual reports signed off by directors and management.
There is politics and then there is duty of the board and management. The latter matters more, as these people can and should be held to account.
It is much harder to hold past politicians to account, who are only interested in taking credit for the wins and denying everything else, or refusing to engage.
The current Government announced new taxes to pay for more infrastructure investment. The Opposition voice was shrill: tax is theft.
If there aren’t enough funds to pay for much-needed infrastructure, and the infrastructure deficit isn’t a phantom, then something has to change. Doing more of the same will not work.
Tilting spending towards public transport, improving road safety amid rising road injuries and deaths, and better walking and cycling, were met with similar shrill opposition.
This, despite knowing for decades that building more roads doesn’t reduce congestion, and public transport relieves congestion.
The proposal to build 4000 homes in Auckland on the Unitec site was welcomed by those who care about increasing housing supply.
The ‘‘anti’’ view was all about adding congestion and that the houses will be too small. The alternative is no homes, not the bigger quarter-acre pavlova paradises that we have failed to build for decades.
Two interpretations emerged: tax and spend, versus finally making much-needed investments. One prioritises the individual, the other the collective.
It is about prioritising rather than only holding one view. Voters are capable of both.
There is a philosophical argument on the right in New
’’Timid moves will not be enough, which is where we seem to be headed.’’
Zealand that a small and efficient government is good.
The emphasis is on small. But if the public service is not efficient, then the cost-cutting just reduces the extent and quality of service.
Despite much bleating about increasing public sector efficiency, old episodes of Yes Minister still ring true. Cutting funding seems to just lead to worsening quality of service and assets.
On the left, the philosophy appears to be more about meeting social needs, even if it means adding taxes and borrowing more.
There is no way to square the circle. If we, as a nation, want to truly invest in fixing the chronic under-investment in housing, infrastructure and social services of many decades, public spending and investment will need to increase a lot.
Timid moves will not be enough, which is where we seem to be headed given this Government’s commitment to keep spending and borrowing in check.
Regardless of who is in power, we seem to be stuck in politics of being ‘‘anti’’ things.
No matter what the Government of the day puts up, there is fierce opposition from the – well – Opposition. And voters seem to be tribal, ready to support their team blindly.
If we want progress, we have to try new things. Yet everyone wants their version of perfect delivered by their own hero.
There are no true heroes. No perfect ideas. No perfect execution. That is reason to try not being ‘‘anti’’ for the sake of it.