More on the Blue Libs
The debate over whether the new National Policy group - Blue Libs - is the equivilant to Labour's gay grouping is going on in the NZ Pol Blogsphere. It seems some Labour Bloggers have suggested it is as it is headed and was launched by gay MP Chris Finlayson.
I guess this debate over the Blue Libs shows a fundamental difference between National and Labour:
Labour sets up groups based on 'identity politics' (e.g. Womens Council, Rainbow Labour, Pacific Island) and then focus on implementing policies to advance the interests each of those identifible groups.
National set up groups (BlueGreens, BlueLibs, etc) based on idealogy within the Conservative brand with the aim of developing policy that take the 'best of breed' from each group to create superior policy for all New Zealanders.
UPDATE: Some claim that National never explained the purpose of the Blue Libs, here is an article from a month ago (4th June) with an explanation! Talk about a short memory.
I guess this debate over the Blue Libs shows a fundamental difference between National and Labour:
Labour sets up groups based on 'identity politics' (e.g. Womens Council, Rainbow Labour, Pacific Island) and then focus on implementing policies to advance the interests each of those identifible groups.
National set up groups (BlueGreens, BlueLibs, etc) based on idealogy within the Conservative brand with the aim of developing policy that take the 'best of breed' from each group to create superior policy for all New Zealanders.
UPDATE: Some claim that National never explained the purpose of the Blue Libs, here is an article from a month ago (4th June) with an explanation! Talk about a short memory.
posted by Michael at
8:29 PM
2 Comments:
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
Jordan, at 10:17 AM
I was just going on the info available, Michael - which was shown to be inadequate. Why there was no media release or anything, or spokesperson for the Blue Libs on the radio the following morning, is beyond me - and it's certainly National's responsibility, not ours, to make sure that kind of thing happens.
I do stand by my quip, though, that 'socially liberal and economically liberal' describes a small but significant segment of Labour Party activism.
I'd take Labour's methods of reaching into communities over National's any day. The great advantage we have as a party is that our organisational structure matches the way people get active in real politics - on characteristics that they happen to have, within a broadly social democratic or liberal perspective.
Thus within each Labour sector there is a huge degree of points of view, not just "liberal" or "environmental" discussion. That political diversity is key to the party's strength. Liberals don't get segmented away from conservatives (a la National); right doesn't get segmented away from left (a la Aussie Labor). We're all in it together.
It helps us make sure that Labour can connect with grass roots communities in a relevant way. It explains why the Labour party can activate more people on the ground than National can - it keeps politics relevant.
It would be a risk for us if it led to the Labour Party simply becoming a collection of interest groups, as the U.S. Democrats did become for a while. But that shows no signs of happening, at least in part because people in Labour interest groups put Labour first, and their particular interest second. Most people in Labour sectors are interested in the whole gamut of policy.
Your statement that Labour's groups just exist to implement their own policy issues is a common misconception (and it suits your partisan interests to perpetuate it), but it is not correct.
By
Jordan, at 10:21 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home