Is it just me, or are other people getting sick of the opposition political party (in this case the National party in New Zealand) always questioning the current Governments 'alternative intentions' when they pass a law that is 'conveniently timed to be in election year'? I listen to The Rock radio station, so the political discourse is obviously kept to a minimum, but the frequency with which I hear some National party member questioning the intentions of the Government 'because it is election year' is shockingly high.
Elections happen every four years. Should the Government stop creating policy and rolling out new initiatives because it's election year? I can't imagine what the opposition wants to happen for the 25% of the time where an election is close to happening. Perhaps they advocate abolishing the Government for the year leading up to elections (except of course they wouldn't do that if they were in power). I honestly don't know what they're saying.
I would think the smarter approach would be to attack the policy, if they are against it, rather than simply attacking the timing of the policy. This happens amazingly less often than I would expect, with the timing of the policy being the real issue raised.
Unless the Government is clearly trying to buy votes, who cares about timing. The issue that pushed me over the edge was Simon Power complaining today that the tagging initiatives proposed by Helen Clark were conveniently timed because it was election year. He didn't say anything else in the sound bite I heard (but I seriously hope he did say more than that!).
To be clear, I did vote Labour last time round as I was a student and interest-free student loans was a Real Good Thing, but this next election I don't know who I'm voting for yet, so don't think I'm bagging National as I have a political aversion to them.
Thoughts on “Politically Convenient Timing”