The “Blue Libs”
July 31st, 2006 at 8:34 pm by David FarrarGod there has been some drivel appear from people on the “Blue Libs” which was launched last Thursday. Jordan has already claimed it to be some kind of “liberal queer group” which should be “the Labour Party branch of the National Party”.
[Insert profanity of your choice here]
The “Blue Libs” are the sucessor group to the “Classical Libs” section which I co-founded a couple of years ago. That group never did much, mainly because I was too busy, Megs had babies, and we had few resources. The new “Blue Libs” are being fully supported by the party and caucus, with many MPs actively involved – especially Chris Finlayson and Katherine Rich.
Some guy called Steve Gray (I think I met him for five seconds as I was leaving) went on Radio NZ complaining that the “gay” word wasn’t mentioned all evening. Huh. Why the hell would it be. The Blue Libs is not a gay section as Jordan and others seem to think. It is basically the group for people who are both market and social liberals, like myself.
I’m personally really excited by the launch. It’s not about turning National into a “liberal party” but recognising National’s heritage is both liberal (Seddon) and conservative, and making sure the liberals in National have influence. I am looking forward to policy debates, policy papers, international speakers etc etc. I want the Blue Libs to be one of the major sources of new policy for the next National Government.
The other great things about the launch was how many of the new National MPs were there (such as Coleman, Foss, Blumsky, Tremain, Groser), plus of course Don Brash himself. Chris Finlayson gave an excellent speech on what liberal means in different countries, in the history of liberalism in NZ and in National and some great liberal Ministers over the years such as Hannan, Marshall, Graham etc.
I understand there will be a website in time for the Blue Libs. I’ll link to it once it is launched.
Tags: National
July 31st, 2006 at 9:59 pm
Useful platform to relaunch a more attractive policy framework. National’s been a little over-balanced in favour of conservative policies. recently. I thought Brash was a classic liberal, still do, but some of his comments during the last election were inexplicable such as the “mainstream” NZers thing. I am pretty certain that they weren’t indicative of his views, just a combination of the situation and a misread of the politics.
National does however have a bit of a challenge on its hands, I think Labour has done well to largely occupy the liberal/progressive territory.
One final thing, where’s Mapp sit with all this. His PC eradicator thing is incompatable I’d have thought.
Vote:July 31st, 2006 at 10:05 pm
Yegads, when did Katherine Rich become market liberal?
Vote:August 1st, 2006 at 4:44 am
Paul W – agree with you on Brash. Yes Labour does have much of the urban liberal vote, but I don’t see National as trying to compete with Labour on “liberal policies”. I see National being liberal enough so that urban liberals sick of high taxes etc can vote National and not be ashamed to tell their mates they did
If you look at Wayne’s pronouncements over the years, I would definitely regard him in the classical liberal mold. I’m not sure being anti PC, is being anti-liberal. In fact one can argue (but lets not today) that much PC behaviour is the opposite of true liberalism.
Vote:August 1st, 2006 at 7:38 am
Sorry, I really find this plantation politics too tiresome to even be bothered with. Of course, if Mr Grey votes on the basis of who can tokenistically say “gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered” the most times in ten seconds – well, then I guess we end up with a Government that expects queers to drop to their knees in gratitude as inequality before the law where our relationships are concerned is entrenched for a generation. Or folks who consider it ‘liberal’ to hand out Welfare for Wealthy Breeders, while working and working class gays and lesbians can go get stuffed as far as Doctor Cullen is concerned.
And perhaps it’s time to remind Mr Grey and Mr. Carter and Mr Savant, that everything in life is a gay issue because it’s the fracking 21st century people! I didn’t come out of the closet to live in the ghetto, and I’m certainly not waiting to be patronisised by anyone.
Vote:August 1st, 2006 at 7:52 am
Blue Libs Jordan?? I’ll always prefer Black Lips Baragwanath.
Vote:August 1st, 2006 at 1:26 pm
Hay David
Not on thread, but do you know anything about the new Xtra Broadband packages they are releasing later this year?
I had an email promising unfettered speeds on both the upload and download streams. No artificial caps!
Vote:August 1st, 2006 at 1:29 pm
Hay David
Not on thread, but do you know anything about the new Xtra Broadband packages they are releasing later this year?
I had an email promising unfettered speeds on both the upload and download streams. No artificial caps!
Vote:August 1st, 2006 at 3:05 pm
I suspect we are already seeing, in these comments, the time dishonoured confusion between US liberal (being liberal with other people’s money) and classic liberal (the tradition of Adam Smith, Heyek, etc.
Vote:August 1st, 2006 at 3:24 pm
Blue Libs? What a great idea, for all the reasons stated. I’d have voted National a long time ago if they weren’t so stuffy on social issues. Get that bit right, and the urban liberals will come flocking.
Vote:August 1st, 2006 at 3:54 pm
I’m more confused than ever. I thought ACT was the ‘Liberal’ Party…I look forward to the formation of the ‘Blue Conservatives’.
Vote:August 1st, 2006 at 6:24 pm
I’m sorry but this blue libs thing seems like a crock of shite.
Vote:August 1st, 2006 at 11:36 pm
Or folks who consider it ‘liberal’ to hand out Welfare for Wealthy Breeders, while working and working class gays and lesbians can go get stuffed as far as Doctor Cullen is concerned
At last the real reason for our long suffering Pundit’s opposition to WFF…good old-fashioned, naked benefit envy. How else do you want to dress it up Craig?
Now personally I don’t really like the WFF mechanism, I think it is a cumbersome way to achieve what could be much more easily done with Universal Income….but that isn’t the point is it? Nope, according to Craig WFF is an evil socialist, upgradeable to stalinist if you want, plot to destroy the hard working honest volk of this proud nation ….but you have to have children to get it….and poor old Craig has found adopting enough to make the rebate worthwhile involves filling out altogether too many tiresome forms.
Try a few moment’s googling on the term “cost of raising children” and be astonished at the numbers. The Australian numbers are in the range $200,000 plus to get one child from birth to 18. And yes parents do shoulder by far the biggest responsibility both financially and emotionally for that task. But at the same time you cannot pretend that children are not the adults of the future, and that taking on the nowadays fiscally onerous task of “breeding” (as you so sneeringly put it) is anything other than the most “bedrock” contribution to the nation as a whole.
If you want to think children are purely and solely the responsibility of their parents…then that is fine. But then consider for a moment the loud outcries when parents get it wrong and abuse the same children. Does not the state intervene then? Or consider the very substantial resources the state puts into education and the welfare of children generally. The fact is that the in the modern world the role of the parent and the wider community are deeply entwined in ways our grandparents never contemplated. The merits of this trend is an interesting wider question….but within the bounds of the status quo. there really can be little to quibble about if the collective makes by way of a tax discount, some small contribution to the very real costs of parenting.
Vote:August 2nd, 2006 at 8:42 am
At last the real reason for our long suffering Pundit’s opposition to WFF…good old-fashioned, naked benefit envy. How else do you want to dress it up Craig?
Oooh. Burrrn!
Have to agree with Mr A, Craig: your admirable prose style raced ahead of your logic there. It might also be noted that working-class gay folk do benefit from Working for Families – if they have families. That’s the point.
Cheers,
Vote:RB
August 2nd, 2006 at 8:50 am
FWIW, I think the creation of an identifiable socially-liberal group within National is good for the party and the political environment as a whole. The people involved just seem to have made a bollocks of the launch.
My contacts in the gay mafia very much perceived the approach to various prominent poofs as an outreach. They were entitled to be a bit puzzled when no one would say the g-word on the night.
Cheers,
Vote:RB
August 2nd, 2006 at 5:55 pm
A promising sign, if by Blue-Lib is meant a classical liberal — someone who believes in both free minds and free markets.
If by virtue of across-the-board agreement it does eventually help de-politicise altogether the g-word and all the other liberal social issues, that can’t be a bad thing either.
The argument exists that if the Blue Libs can’t even bring themselves to say the g-word, that might suggest it’s still early days, and that only the lip-service light is being left on. But as an argument it, like the Blue-Libs themselves, needs more evidence to be able judge for sure.
“In fact one can argue (but let’s not today) that much PC behaviour is the opposite of true liberalism.”
One can and indeed has argued that for some time. ;^)
Vote:August 2nd, 2006 at 5:55 pm
A promising sign, if by Blue-Lib is meant a classical liberal — someone who believes in both free minds and free markets.
If by virtue of across-the-board agreement it does eventually help de-politicise altogether the g-word and all the other liberal social issues, that can’t be a bad thing either.
The argument exists that if the Blue Libs can’t even bring themselves to say the g-word, that might suggest it’s still early days, and that only the lip-service light is being left on. But as an argument it, like the Blue-Libs themselves, needs more evidence to be able judge for sure.
“In fact one can argue (but let’s not today) that much PC behaviour is the opposite of true liberalism.”
One can and indeed has argued that for some time. ;^)
Vote:August 2nd, 2006 at 8:42 pm
Oh good God this is all nonsense about not saying the gay word. I’m sorry but that’s just drivel. If any gay person turned up expecting that the word gay must be said out loud a minimum number of times, then they are in the wrong place.
No-one at all I know (and I knew probably 90% of the people there) thought it was about gay issues. Or about shop trading ours. Or about state owned monopolies. It was about (classical) liberalism.
At some stage I hope to do a policy paper suggesting the state get out of marriages all together, and that the state should merely register all couple relationships equally (gay or straight), with people having the option to go to a church if they want that relationship to also be called marriage. Now if I get around to doing that, and we have a meeting on that issue then I’m sure the “g” word will be mentioned lots of times, for those who think such things matter.
Vote:August 3rd, 2006 at 9:16 am
The need for the Blue Libs is obvious – completely obvious.
The need for successors to the great liberal National MPs of the past that you name – Hanan, Marshall and Graham – is equally obvious.
Do we now see why Katherine Rich is really not more elevated in the rankings? Is Judith Collins involved?
The problem with some MPs in the caucus today is likely to be that they are more liberal than there pronouncements suggest – it is just that National at the moment is crowding out ACT on the extreme right.
The new NZ Curriculum is an example of National getting caught out too far to the right. The NZ Herald today believes the Curriculum should be adopted with little change. National is back on the starting blocks with the 3Rs and league tables – in danger of getting overtaken by events.
Is there a candidate for future leadership among this Blue Libs group? All things considered, it may be best that Don Brash hangs on until a successor that identifies with more liberal philosophy can be identified.
Do keep us posted on developments.
Vote:August 3rd, 2006 at 9:18 am
The need for the Blue Libs is obvious – completely obvious.
The need for successors to the great liberal National MPs of the past that you name – Hanan, Marshall and Graham – is equally obvious.
Do we now see why Katherine Rich is really not more elevated in the rankings? Is Judith Collins involved?
The problem with some MPs in the caucus today is likely to be that they are more liberal than there pronouncements suggest – it is just that National at the moment is crowding out ACT on the extreme right.
The new NZ Curriculum is an example of National getting caught out too far to the right. The NZ Herald today believes the Curriculum should be adopted with little change. National is back on the starting blocks with the 3Rs and league tables – in danger of getting overtaken by events.
Is there a candidate for future leadership among this Blue Libs group? All things considered, it may be best that Don Brash hangs on until a successor that identifies with more liberal philosophy can be identified.
Do keep us posted on developments.
Vote:August 3rd, 2006 at 12:26 pm
I have the feeling that this debate is being confused by the use of Liberal in two ways – the American LIberal is someone who is liberal with other people’s money.
Vote:The English or Classic Liberal is someone in the tradition of Adam Smith, Locke, John Stuart Mill, Heyek etc.
The typical US liberal would be a member of the Labour Party – a Democrat.
August 3rd, 2006 at 12:27 pm
I have the feeling that this debate is being confused by the use of Liberal in two ways – the American LIberal is someone who is liberal with other people’s money.
Vote:The English or Classic Liberal is someone in the tradition of Adam Smith, Locke, John Stuart Mill, Heyek etc.
The typical US liberal would be a member of the Labour Party – a Democrat.
August 3rd, 2006 at 12:50 pm
Anonymous:
Paedophobic benefit envy from a bitter spinster? Hardly… I’m perfectly well aware if the human race operated solely on a rolling cost benefit analysis, raising children is right up there with investing in a Broadway show as an act of economic irrationality. (Especially in the First World, where cannibalism, child labour and slave trading is now frowned upon.)
But pardon me if I feel a distinct lack of sympathy when The O’Herald runs another full page feature about how hard it is to make ends meet on a six-figure income when you’re raising children and making mortgage payments on that villa in a fashionable (and expensive) neighbourhood and playing your part to make sure New Zeland has some of highest levels of personal bank and credit card debt in the OECD. Now, if successive Governments (both National and Labour) want to argue that handing out welfare payments to the affluent are an effective or sustainable allocation of scarce resources. Fine. Want to make the case that our welfare safety nets are meant to subsidise the lifestyle choices of middle-class baby boomers, or that the priority of our response to the demographic reality of an ageing population should be estate protection for well-heeled Grey Power members. Go to. That’s just not any kind of ‘classical liberalism’ I’m familiar with – but it’s damn fine politics, isn’t it?
Oh, and anonymous, I am sorry if you think spinsters like me just don’t get the challenges of raising a family. Sincerely – I respect the unsung heroes who muddle through, do the best they can and turn out not to have done that bad a job. OTOH, please do think twice before you say something to your childless acquaintances like “gee, life must be so great for you.” First, consider that not everyone in this world is childless by choice. Second, remember that people like my partner and I have financial challenges of our own when we sit down every month to do the household accounts. You’re not subsidising our student loan or mortgage payments, covering the substantial ongoing medical costs not covered by public subsidy or our private insurance, etc. And, inconvenient as it is, while we’re in a relatively high income household I don’t see why we should expect the tax-payer to subsidise our sense of entitlement.
Vote: