“Pt Chev liberal” is shorthand, the same way “Waitakere Man” is.
I still don’t understand why “Pt Chev liberals” are to blame. Don’t they have a right to their reckons like Waitakere Man does? It’s not as if they exercise some wicked mind-control on the party executive. One might think they’re a not-insubstantial constituency Labour would risk losing to the Greens if Labour became too illiberal.
My sense is that Labour's The Future of Work thing might actually have some legs. There's a constituency of Labour voters who would welcome a broadening of the party's focus to include contractors and the self-employed. I know a lot of liberal sorts, particularly in the creative trades, who would respond to that.
Yes. I’d still love to hear what characterises them. I’m imagining age as much as anything, with the old Values/eco-hippies being one group.
Browning certainly seems to have been delivered by the woo faction, although he only went up one place (from 16 to 15) after the list was voted on. Sue Bradford’s exit after failing to gain the co-leadership also seemed like a factional defeat.
And as someone else has indicated upthread, the party’s male co-leadership race is also a bit bitchier and more ideological than it might appear on the surface.
This isn’t really a criticism. It’s a normal state of affairs. It just doesn’t seem true that the Greens are a party entirely without factions.
I may not agree with how Matthew has framed it, but I think he has a real point. I can’t help but think of the way that the Democrats have been so much more successful in the last two presidential elections than the Republicans, by understanding the electorate numbers better and wasting less energy or resources on the already decided.
That's true. But ... it's very expensive and the Democrats didn't have to contend with a centre-right party claiming the centre. The Republicans have been going the other way, off into moonbat land.
But of course the Pt Chev liberals controlling Labour has never been more true. Russell and Jolisa, we’re looking at you. Release the Labour Party!
I might point out that National won the party vote at three of our suburb's four booths. And Labour only won the other one by three votes.
More New Zealanders will be injured and experience worse health, and some employers will have more money than they would otherwise.
What would you do differently? How would Waitakere Man / Waikanae Woman be convinced that this is an issue worthy of their emotional energy, and then that this emotional energy should be directed against the Government and for a particular opposition party?
This is where I perennially struggle. Why can't people be nerdy like me and look at the evidence and conclude it's a terrible idea?
Mind you, I write about evidence-based drug policy. I'm basically choosing to be perennially disappointed.
your #3 does not apply to the Greens, right?
You're saying Steffan Browning made his list ranking on merit?
That’s the challenge: how to put large and serious issues in which the government is failing or underperforming – on any objective measure – to the public in such a way that they are presented not as petty politicking but as issues of general concern. And then bring that attention back to the political parties that presented the issue in the first place.
And also finding ways to critique it – pointing out the clawbacks and abatements in the alleged $25 a week benefit increase – without looking negative and petty.
Sure – and if you want to frame it as “negative campaigning” then that fair enough too, but it also strikes me as a perfectly legitimate campaign to run even if you don’t like the people putting it forward.
That’s actually how Lynton Crosby framed it.
The problem was there was nothing even slightly mysterious about the policies Labour had been presenting consistently for the best part of a year from Clark and Cullen all the way down.
Absolutely. I like your italics.
I agree in 2002, Labour's message was "look at those clowns". But in 2005, it was more "look at that threat". They tried that again in 2008 against Smile and Wave and it fell flat.
It's still a version of "don't risk it", though. Also: Don Brash trying to get into a stock car.
How far do we bend social norms to fit personal drives and vice versa?
In this case, it's a "personal drive" I can relate to. I do understand the appeal of having control over that final act, of being able to make the choice about when is enough.