Perspective with Ryan Bridge: Do we need to give our politicians four-year terms?

So we're all going to have our say on giving our politicians a four year term - or are we?

The announcement from Goldsmith today was all over the place - David Seymour is largely to blame for that. He'll be on the show soon, so we'll ask him to explain then.

But in principle, do I support a four-year term? Yes.

Why? Because politics is too short-sighted. They spend one year getting in. One year doing work. Then another year getting elected again.

The bigger problem, though, is strategy and pay-off. Strategizing with a 3-year window means short-sighted ambitions. It means we don't invest in as many big roading and rail projects as they should. It means we don't bother with fixing productivity. Stuff gets put in the too-hard basket because there's no pay off before the next election.

And that's the prize these guys are working towards.

Part of the reason China is a superpower today - only 50 odd years after opening up to the world - is because it has centralised power. It's a dictatorship. It has a very clear direction and very clear strategy. And no pesky elections to worry about.

Now obviously we don't want to go full autocracy here - but a little more time for a party in power would, I think, do more good than harm.

I also reckon we should give local Government four years too. For much the same reasons.

But I also think we should combine voting in local and national politics, so you vote for your mayor and your Government on the same day, in the same polling booth.

Two fifths of bugger all people actually bother voting in local elections - which is part of the reason local councils are run by such weirdos who can't seem to balance budgets.

So, one polling day for everything, once every four years. Tick, tick, tick, tick. Done, easy.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.