Policy Clarity Quotes

There is a responsibility as president to choose your words carefully, especially on foreign policy, and to speak as clearly as possible.

Lib Dems are really good at making very detailed policies but very bad are communicating the core values that drive those policies. I'd like us to say less but more often. We need to focus on a few themes and go hard on them.

Too often, politicians fail to relate what they advocate to the kind of society they want to build, or they dress up policy in rhetoric which belies their actual intention. Meanwhile Joe Public is left wondering what on earth this bunch are all about and how their vision of a good society differs from that of the other lot.

The only way to deal with gridlock is compromise. And if we compromise, it means we’ll have a confused policy.

Until the administration can articulate a coherent and convincing policy for closing Guantanamo, it should remain open.

Refined policy ever has been the parent of confusion, and ever will be so as long as the world endures. Plain good intention, which is as easily discovered at the first view as fraud is surely detected at last, is of no mean force in the government of mankind.

One of the problems that Hillary Clinton had, and one of the problems that Democrats still have is people don't really know what we stand for.

What you want in foreign policy is clear, well-defined goals.

Jimmy Carter laid out policies that we now look back at and say, 'Gee, that actually made sense.' But you also need to explain it and convey and communicate in a way that provides that tableau, that understanding.

In my experience everyone will have a different view of the right level of tax so governments need to provide clear guidance that conforms to a set of international standards that all governments accept.

We would like a stable policy framework, and whatever incentives and tax structures are there should be made known to investors upfront. There should be credibility, clarity and continuity in both policy formulation and its implementation.

As the head of the government, it is my responsibility to make the overriding political goals and relationships more clear. Part of the reason the public didn't understand some of the reforms enacted during the past legislative period was that there was far too much talk about the details, while the general picture often remained invisible.

I would love to see more certainty on tax policy and regulations, but in a sense that is a crutch….We need more certainty of demand.

I did learn from many mistakes. First and foremost, I learned that it is important to create a wide base of support within the LDP. In forming the cabinet this time, I included almost all the members of the LDP whom I ran against during the party election for president. Also, as a result of the lessons I learned, this time my policy priorities have become very clear. This would include first and foremost restoring a robust economy. I believe this has resulted in the strong support that I am getting from the people.

This Administration has led us into an area without vision. Bush has no clear understanding of what is being asked of the citizens, and the military is under his direction.

I'm pleased the administration is endorsing the need for legislation dealing with the chemical sector. In the past, the administration's position has been ambiguous.

Advocacy groups and voters are not wrong to push candidates to declare their position clearly on policy issues. That is good citizenship. Hard questions should be asked of every candidate, every politician. And those public servants should be prepared to answer, but in their own words.

The U.S. military is not war weary. Our military draws strength from confronting our enemies when clear policy objectives are set and we are fully resourced for the fight.

In order to have your short term policies accepted, you have to have your long term policies understood.

Many of us have questions about what Trump's positions really are. We want to make sure we are on board with each other.

If a prospective Presidential approach can't be explained clearly enough to be understood well, it probably hasn't been thought through well enough. If not well understood by the American people, it probably won't 'sail' anyway. Send it back for further thought.

Is it in the best interest of baseball to sell beer in the ninth inning? Probably not. The rule has got to be more clearly defined. And then some process should be set up where the judge is not also the appeals judge.

As a great employer, one of things we prize is political consistency and clear policy.

Singapore's not a very big country. They speak with one voice, and they have a clear idea of what their regulatory environment should look like.