Mike's Minute: Can we achieve bipartisan results in this day and age?

The letter from the energy industry yesterday got less coverage than the call last week for a bipartisan approach to big infrastructure. So I am not sure what that means. 

Did the media not notice the letter? Or did they notice the letter and not think promoting a bipartisan approach was useful? Or had we given up, given last week's call fell apart the moment it got uttered publicly? 

A 30-year plan, a new agency, and the first thing that happened was Chris Hipkins pooh-poohed it, citing the treatment they got on light rail and cycle bridges. 

I think at least part of the lesson is that it's easy to call for a bipartisan approach, which is what the energy users are asking for. 

Indeed offering a few starters for ten, which is what they do in their letter, isn't that hard either. It's the next bit where things fall apart. 

Is it possible we have become a divided country? 

We cite America and its blocked and broken system as the premier example of a country being unable to get anything done, but are we any different? 

Last week it was infrastructure, this week it's energy. And what's the outcome? 

When it comes to infrastructure you've got a party that cancelled roads and built cycleways and bus lanes, and the other party who cancelled the bike paths and will build the roads. 

You've got a party that liked to pay for projects through debt vs a party that likes PPPs and congestion charging. 

When it comes to the energy crisis one party that thought a $16b dollar lake was an answer and another that thinks gas should be looked for and coal burned. 

The question, which is where a new agency or more cohesive approach would come in, is where is the middle ground? 

Where is the commonality? 

The trouble with this country, like America, is we come at it from not only two different sides, but with a very large gap to close and a long-held belief that we are right, and the other guys are out to lunch. 

But unlike America, where you find moderate versions of Democrats and Republicans in both parties, here you are not allowed to think outside your party's mandates, far less actually vote against them. 

So, the conclusion would appear the twain shall never meet, because we are black and white, and the answer isn't. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
So the letter from the energy industry yesterday got less
coverage than the call last week for a bipartisan approach
to begin for structure. So I'm not sure what that means.
Did the media not notice the letter, or did they
notice the letter and not think promoting a bipartisan approach
was useful, or had we given up basically, given last
week's call fell apart. Basically, the moment got uttered publicly.
I mean, last week's call was a thirty year plan

(00:21):
and new agency and the first thing that happened was
Chris Hipkins poo pooed it, citing the treatment they got
on light rail and cycle bridges. Anyway, I think at
least part of the lesson is that it's easy to
call for a bipartisan approach, which is what the energy
users are asking for, and indeed offering a few starters
for ten which is what they do in their letter.
That's not a bad idea either. It's the next bit
where things fall apart. Is it possible we've become too

(00:44):
divided a country. I mean, we cite America and it's
blocked and broken system as the premier example of a
country being unable to get anything done. But are we
any different? Think about it last week infrastructure, this week energy,
and what's the outcome? Infrastructure A party that canceled roads
and build cycle ways and bylanes, the other party who
canceled the bike lanes and built the roads. A party

(01:04):
that liked to pay for project through debt versus a
party that likes PPPs and congestion charging the energy crisis.
One party that thought a sixteen billion dollar lake was
the answer, another that thinks gas should be looked for
and coal should be burned. The question, which is where
a new agency or more cohesive approach would come in,
is where's the middle ground? Where's the commonality? Trouble with

(01:25):
this country, like America, is we come at it from
not only two different sides, but with a very very
large gap to close and a long held belief that
we are right and the other guys are out to lunch.
But unlike America, where you find moderate versions of Democrats
and Republicans in both parties, here you're not allowed to
think outside your parties mandates, far less actually vote against them.
So the conclusion would appear the train shall never meet

(01:48):
because we are black and white, and the answer isn't
for more from the Mic Asking Breakfast. Listen live to
news talks that'd be from six am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio