ONE key to success for anyone in power is to "under-promise but over-deliver".
That way, expectations are kept in check, and when the unexpected, or the difficult, is made to happen, the one in the hot seat gets the appropriate credit.
Yet our modern-day politicians, for whatever reason, appear to have forgotten this useful maxim.
Spending programs will be unveiled with big price tags, only for the fine print to reveal that the headline figure is the cost over a decade, meaning the real contribution is far more modest, on an annual basis.
And then there's the situation we find ourselves in as far as Stockton is concerned, and the ALP's promise to spend $21 million on a "mass sand nourishment program" to counter the erosion that continues to pose a threat to a small but important section of the Stockton beach.
As substantial as that $21 million figure might seem, it needs to be seen in light of a substantial under-spend on the Coalition government's Coastal and Estuary Grants Program, a five-year scheme begun in 2016 to help councils address coastal erosion problems.
A freedom-of-information application in 2021 revealed that $34 million - or 47 per cent - of the $72-million program remained unspent after five years.
It is true that there is always massive pressure on the public purse, and a need to balance the books where possible can sometimes mean taking money from old programs to meet new and more politically high-profile demands.
But unless an administration fesses up to its reallocation of funds, the public is likely to be none the wiser, at least for a while.
And if both sides of politics continue to "rob Peter to pay Paul" when balancing the books, then a change in government does not necessarily result in anything different.
If the private sector was caught promoting a $34 million spend as a $71 million program, a government-appointed consumer watchdog would have few qualms in describing such advertising as a fraud on the community.
In politics, however, the best we can hope for is the tut-tutting of an auditor-general's report, or - in the case of Stockton - a promise by one side to spend what the other side should have already.
That all this dilly-dallying over Stockton is taking place when Macquarie Street can expect to take $6 billion this year alone in coal royalties only adds to the insult.
SAVE OUR STOCKTON FILE HERE
