Open Labour
Last week Clare Curran blogged on #OpenLabourNZ, an experiment at a new way of developing policy.
Quite fittingly, the first policy they wish to try and develop this way is on “open and transparent government”.
Now this is not quite a write the policy by wiki:
Will you be writing Labour policy?
We want to be upfront with you from the beginningYour input will contribute to Labour’s policy. The #openlabournz document will be taken as a key input for Labour to consider in developing its policy, noting the other drivers and that there will be changes possibly made between it and the final policy. However, please be assured that the final output will be of high quality, and that high quality suggestions are always taken very seriously in Labour Party policy development.
Labour is of course a political party and politics will dictate what the final policy looks like and how it is arrived at. Once the #openlabournz document is completed, we will keep you posted about where the policy is at, and where it ends up. Labour’s policy finalisation process is for Labour members and you’re welcome to participate in that next step through the usual route of joining the party.
I think this is a welcome initiative, and I certainly look forward to participating in it. I thought Labour did a good job of involving interested stakeholders in their change of policy on S92A, with open stakeholder meetings.
In a follow up post, Clare gets into the process:
This is a brainstorming phase. We want to hear all your ideas, suggestions, and the issues you think are important regards open and transparent government. At this stage any contribution is welcome and valid, no matter how left field. Blog posts, links to news articles and reports or research, commentary on what’s happening in other countries, your half thought through or fully structured thoughts, anything is welcome.
It would be great if you could use the OpenLabourNZ tag whenever you write about the issue. This will make it easier for us to find and aggregate your input.
Later on there will be a wiki also.
So what are my initial ideas for an open and transparent government policy.
- My previous suggestion that all Cabinet level documents be automatically placed on the Internet by DPMC within six months of creation.
- Expanding Parliament TV to include select committees
- Requiring all payments (above a modest threshold) from a Govt agency to be listed on a central website
- Requiring the Attorney-General to not just publish an opinion on BORA compliance for a first reading of a bill, but also at second and third readings
I am sure given time, I can think of some more. Readers are invited to contribute their ideas below, as these will all feed into the policy process.
Labour will be Government again at some stage. I welcome the opportunity to have input into some of their policies, even though I know I will disagree with many of them. Well done to them on their initiative.
May 3rd, 2010 at 12:13 pm
This is a great initiative which deserves support – and a good response from DPF, who, unlike some here I suspect, recognises the value in strong opposition parties. Better the consultation and policy development in ALL parties will benefit everyone.
May 3rd, 2010 at 12:16 pm
Didn’t the loverly Clare once write paper saying that anything could be sold as long as one applied certain language techniques? Is this an approach that gels with “openness and transparency”??
The Obama government was elected because they said they would be open and transparent. They turned out to be one of the most secretive administrations ever to occupy the White House. Anyone convinced NZ Labour would be any different??
Here’s the first step to openness and transparency- reducing the size of government, reducing taxation and regulation, and leaving individuals alone. Any Labour people ready to subscribe to that?? I doubt it.
Why don’t the left/ Labour be up front about how they would like to see New Zealand in say fifty years. Really upfront. Not something couched in slippery language, but real terminology. Like how much tax is the optimum an individual should have to pay?
We see the future under the left in the UK. How about a statement from the NZ Labour party saying they disown the crushing totalitarian and politically correct culture that has destroyed the UK, once one of the most free nations on earth. Any chance of such a statement?
How about coming clean on immigration. Labour in the UK admitted their goal was to radically restructure UK society. Is this NZ Labour’s intent in NZ???
Honest answers to all of the above would have significant impact on Labour’s political fortunes.
May 3rd, 2010 at 12:19 pm
I’d like to see just about everyone’s answer to this one.
May 3rd, 2010 at 12:21 pm
Here’s your chance RB, go and contribute your ideas (you might need to stay on topic rather than use generalised slogans) and get others you agree with to contribute to add weight, if they are worthwhile ideas they could influence policy.
But don’t be too impatient, politics in the real world can take time.
May 3rd, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Great. Add
Secret voting in Parliament by Mp’s. Removal of whipping by party whips except for C+S.
So secret is not open but it prevents the use of power over the MP by the party so he can vote in a way that reflects his electorate vote. Act do it, why can’t the rest of them?
May 3rd, 2010 at 12:56 pm
My only suggestion to Labour is keep Goff as leader all the way through the next election. If they do that, then all their policy is irrelevant.
May 3rd, 2010 at 1:16 pm
Wrong Put it away. The policies that Labour develops will influence what government policies they support or oppose while they are in opposition, and it will affect the quality of policies they have when they inevitably lead the country again (whenever that may be).
May 3rd, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Quote “Your input will contribute to Labour’s policy. The #openlabournz document will be taken as a key input for Labour to consider in developing its policy, noting the other drivers and that there will be changes possibly made between it and the final policy.”
I have a novel idea. It is a bit out there and may not catch on.
How about politician’s have an idea that they believe in, promote it as policy, then we all get to vote them into or out of government depending on if like their policy or not
May 3rd, 2010 at 1:33 pm
Thanks for your comments DPF – some of us are watching this carefully because of the potential to use the tool for other areas – probably more niches this time around. Viking2 – the area of loosening the whip is one worth a decent debate but the idea of secret voting seems to undermine democracy to me. Whats the point if people who are being asked to vote for you don’t know.
May 3rd, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Clare Curren said “Labour’s policy finalisation process is for Labour members and you’re welcome to participate in that next step through the usual route of joining the party.”
DPF said: “I think this is a welcome initiative, and I certainly look forward to participating in it.”
So, does that mean you’ll be joining the Labour party then DPF? Sounds like you need to sign up to provide input to policy.
edit: Oh OK, just the finalisation process. But ideas are perhaps free for all to contribute?
May 3rd, 2010 at 1:38 pm
Some of us will be watching this carefully to. It has potential, but it could be a challenge keeping a free flow of ideas without it being abused by poison messengers, or by moderation that tries to control the message.
Maxvp – surely National and Labour should end up with many similar policies if they do proper homework on them. There will be some ideological slants but the “right” answer must sure attract both of them. The parties will differentiate on some policies, but also on different personnel.
May 3rd, 2010 at 1:42 pm
Viking2 – I’d like to see ONLY C&S votes whipped, and everything else subject to a private vote, which each MP can choose to keep private, or publish at their discretion. This would allow MP’s to vote secretly if they felt their vote would attract retribution a PM who may have ‘strongly directed’ a particular vote from his/her MPs. It’s on my must-have list for an ‘Open Electorate’ system.
May 3rd, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Sounds to me like at the moment Labour is simply a political party for the sake of being a political party. Bereft of any ideas, with no clear policy, scant idea of where their support lies and what those supporters want. This is just a way for them to try find out what people want and then try and cater their language to appeal to this, so they can return to power. I prefer my politcal parties to have a little more conviction.
May 3rd, 2010 at 4:33 pm
Removing the whip – woo hoo the ultimate form of pork barrel politics
Secret votes – nah I want to know what my elected representative is voting for so I can hold him to account at the ballot box
May 3rd, 2010 at 5:01 pm
The first step towards ‘openness and transparency’ would be an expansive set of frank, unconditional apologies for Labours 9 years of wanton and callus demolition of our democratic processes. Once that was sorted, attempts to garner public opinion would have some credibility. Not before.
May 3rd, 2010 at 5:46 pm
Claire/Trevor, good initiative. I make no secret of supporting the right of politics, but I’ll happily contribute to any policy formation process that will have my input. If National aren’t taking the input, then looks like Labour get it.
A suggestion on how this might play out though. Since you have an open process, it allows anybody to contribute, but also anybody to read. There is the potential of National freeriding on the work you’re doing, and then cherry picking the good ideas and/or the ones that fit their ideology.
The question is whether that is a problem. I think for any opposition, once you get to the point where you’re influencing government policy, you’re the government in waiting. If National are cherry picking from work you’re doing, you have a reason to be going to the public and saying “why have National implement Labour’s ideas when you could have Labour doing it.” So at this stage, and maybe any stage, in the political pendulum, it may be just as good to get the visibility even if it means your ideas being “stolen” – noting I guess that if you’re going with an open wiki/collaborative approach, it’s hard to even argue that they’re your ideas v’s you just acting as an aggregator for other people’s ideas.
Another potential downside is if you start getting ideas that are not ideas you’d want to pursue (not aligned to Labour’s brand/ideology/direction), but some in the MSM can’t successfully divide things that happen in this process from actual Labour policy. In a similar way that they often cannot separate blog postings from blog comments, and hold the site owner responsible for the stupid things some commenters say.
Anyway, like I say, well worth the trial, and if nothing else it’s good publicity, and lord knows you guys can do with that at the moment.
As for open govt, my wish list:
– a clear statement of the direction government/a party/a coalition is going in – what do we want to achieve. Preferably in some sort of measurable sense. In my ideal world, we’d get all the parties to do this, and we’d probably discover that all the parties think we’re going to the same place, they just have different roads to get there
– for each new policy announced, some clear statement of what it’s trying to achieve, what options were considered, what risks/downsides each option had, and why a particular option was chosen.
– even better, before the policy was announced, start with the intent statement, put it up on the website and take input. Then put up the options, along with pros/cons etc, and again take input. Then put up recommendation. This allows a sensible discussion/debate. People like Eric Crampton would spend their own time, set their students assignments, provide free advice on the potential upsides and downsides. Some (with hindsight) blatantly obvious impacts of policy could be avoided with proper consultation and thought.
Problem with my idea is that it leaves little room for politics. Doing one thing and claiming another, doing something for one reason but providing another, those types of interactions would become very difficult. Which means politicians have to be honest, and as we all know, NZers don’t vote for honest politicians. Reminds me of the marketing lecturer who explained how NZ has a massive market for wine that is labelled dry but is actually sweet. Human nature I guess.
May 3rd, 2010 at 6:57 pm
Whatever ground Labour (Clare in particular!) made with this initiative they certainly lost it with this rush-of-shit-to-the-brains:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3652427/Call-for-railcars-to-be-built-in-NZ
Are you really serious Clare or are you just taking the piss?
I honestly cannot believe you, in the position you are in, can be that fiscally retarded.
Why not also ask why Air NZ has ordered dreamliners from Boeing???
May 3rd, 2010 at 7:30 pm
This post is a month and a few days late. Liarbore and open and transparent government, hilarious. Surely you can’t believe these socialist twits want open government, God we just got rid of the wicked witch and her number one claim to fame was subterfuge and deception. Open and transparent government, fool me once ok fool me again I’m a true fool. Wouldn’t trust the bastards as far I can spit.
May 3rd, 2010 at 7:55 pm
Trevor, thankyou. Whipping is the scourge of any attempt at democracy. I agree making the vote secret sounds the opposite of the intent and I’d agree we do want to know what the MP votes but that needs to happen after the vote. The issue is always going to be that the Party controls the money, especially for the bigger parties.
Maybe there is a better way and that’s something worth putting minds to.
Poliwatch (197) Says:
May 3rd, 2010 at 4:33 pm
Removing the whip – woo hoo the ultimate form of pork barrel politics
How so?
May 3rd, 2010 at 8:00 pm
Is this some kind of joke?
Why would anyone trust a PR “spinner”?
Note also what was said:
“and politics will dictate what the final policy looks like and how it is arrived at”.
In other words, “thanks for your input but in the end we will do what we decide is good for you”!
Is this some sort of Labour tactic, knowing they face life on the opposition benches past the next election or two, to hammer away at National and being the (Labour) party that is supposedly transparent from the ground up?
As a former life long Labour supporter (who finally saw the light and jumped ship) I say, “yeah right” you corrupt, power hungry turkeys!
May 3rd, 2010 at 8:06 pm
I don’t really understand how changing whipping rules (even if we could change such a thing – they’re enforced by the parties) would help. The parties select the candidates, the parties are what people vote for. Why on earth would we want a candidate in a party who didn’t vote the way the party wanted? I’d be pissed off if I voted in a National MP and then that MP voted against National’s policies (other than in extreme circumstances – in which circumstances I suspect whipping would have no effect anyway).
What is this kiwiblog fascination that somehow parties are evil, but the people who stand for those parties are not evil?
May 3rd, 2010 at 8:32 pm
With Labour dumping continuously on the Maori Party, they really don’t have many options in terms of coalition partners.
Initiatives like these don’t happen without a reason behind the facade.
Perhaps a supposed more transparent Labour might attract some of those who voted Green (because of their ideals and support for greater transparency etc) back into the fold?
If Labour could take enough Green voters back to make a real dent (into the Greens), the momentum could only build (eg positive media attention, reinforcing a vote for the Greens is a wasted vote etc)?
May 3rd, 2010 at 8:42 pm
How about a commitment to get your slimy socialist propaganda out of the education curriculum? “Social Justice” and “Environmentalism” have no place in schools. Just give kids the basics that allow them to make up their own minds.
Indoctrination of school children in any case is only an admission that your ideas cannot stand rational scrutiny in the adult world.
..and you could make the same commitment in respect of the sick propaganda that passes for Maori studies.
Indoctrinating schoolchildren is just so foul, nobody with a conscience would do it.
May 3rd, 2010 at 8:42 pm
Viking 2 – Removing the whip
In principle a good idea which is why a small party like ACT can do it but there are a number of issues.
C+S – how is this defined. Supply is easy (Budget etc). But Confidence. How often does a government have to call for Confidence just to get it’s Bill’s passed i.e. abuse the right.
What is a government – What happens if a government wins each C+S vote but cannot get it’s other measures through? Does it really have a mandate to govern? Hmmm – what would the current mining vote be (assuming the proposal was adopted)?
What happens to Cabinet Collective Responsibility? Does Cabinet agree something by majority and then the minority vote against it in the House – or does Cabinet remain together as a vote. I can see lots of Cabinet positions being created.
Does Caucus stay in place? – it effectively just becomes a brainstorming meeting as everyone is free to do what they like outside of Caucus. If a member is going to vote against an issue, should it join the opposing Caucus on that issue so that they can all jointly create a better defence against the issue.
On a contentious issue (i.e. a close vote) what will an MP get in return for their vote – very American in style that one. And don’t be an idealistic on this one – everyone trades in politics (pork barrel politics).
Senior positions – Ministers Outside Cabinet, Under Secretary’s, Select Committee Chairman etc – Who is going to appoint them and they will be much more favourable to the electors/appointers if they vote the party way.
ACT can do this at the moment because they understand their (small) importance in Parliament. Assuming they ever got large enough to govern, the policy would change and the whip would be introduced.
The one thing you would get is MP’s following the constituency much more than at present rather than the Party line, but that would mean I suspect that the current National-led government would be even more centrist than it currently is. And that wind up even more of the submitters to this Blog. There would be even less of a wind-back of Labour initiatives of the last 9 years – and I don’t want to see that.
You could argue that those initiatives might not have been put in place if the whip was not in place. To that I have just two words for you “Helen Clark”.
May 4th, 2010 at 8:36 am
It sounds a good idea. yes it really does.
Claire is the new wave of the future for Labour.
But….
How does a group of people who operate a certain way to keep control so that they can force their ideology on the majority be trusted again.
- When they lied, lied and more lies.
- Attacked the social and institutional basis for family and society.
- Wrote laws retrospectively to protect their own in secret.
- Wrote laws that broke the NZBora and assailed our fundamental rights in a democracy.
- Spent all our money and then some whilst signing off other projects without properly costing it so the next government were committed to them even though there was NO money.
Then there is the person of Claire Curren and her part in underhand dealings to place her in place and the treatment of state employees as a consequence.
Great idea, really, but I would check if I still had my watch after shaking hands with Labour on anything.