Blue Libs
May 29th, 2007 at 2:55 pm by David FarrarEarlier this month there was a packed room for a Blue Libs meeting, with guest speakers being Hon Hugh Templeton, MP Chris Finlayson, Businesswoman Claire Drake and Anna Nuzum.
Hugh put forward the proposition that NZ for its entire 150 year history has been a liberal country with liberal leaders, differing only in degrees. Being the first country to give women, the vote, signing the Treaty etc. I found it interesting, but wasn’t convinced myself that Muldoon was a liberal of any stripe.
Chris Finlayson asked whether National could be liberal, He points to a rich tradition from inception, but says the Moyle incident in the late 70s was the start of a decline as National disconnected from urban liberal NZ especially. To define liberalism Chris rejected the US definitions and pointed to the UK and the legendary contests between Disraeli and Gladstone.
Claire Drake spoke on the challenges of being a young feminist and in National. At the 1975 United Women’s Convention she was told You can’t be a feminist unless you are a socialist” – advice luckily she ignored. Claire also spoke on how she supports much of what ACT promotes but she supports National as the place where one can most influence government. She also usefully reminded us that core NZ Labour principles remain “To ensure the just distribution of the production and services of the nation for the benefit of all people” and “To educate the public in the principles and objectives of democratic socialism and economic and social cooperation”.
The highlight for me was the speech from Anna Nuzum. Anna provided some fairly blunt criticisms of National’s record to date:
“For politicians – victory and defeat come on election night. For people who believe in ideas, victory and defeat come with each piece of legislation passed into law.”
As liberals here today – we are people who believe in ideas. I’m going to speak about how as a young person, I find liberalism relevant to me.
When National started hemorrhaging votes – we ran to the centre. Not the nice, liberal centre, but the easy votes of the socially conservative centre. We’ve appealed to ‘the base’. The moral conservatives, farmers, businesspeople, and even those who would make New Zealand a mono-cultural society. When National starts losing votes – politics beats principle.
At first impressions – sure, let’s ban the gang patches. They don’t add anything to society right? Violence, drugs, intimidation… But the thing is, if we don’t stand up for principles here, we set a precedent. Next comes skin heads – they’re tied to racism – and all of a sudden the haircut police are patrolling the nation’s streets.
Every time the government interferes with people’s lives – they disempower communities, and people lose a little more independence. They become a little less themselves, and more part of a sterile, neutered, society…or no society at all.
Now, I’ve been asked so many times recently about how National (and I) can be liberal and still support, for example, Jacqui Dean’s stance in banning party pills – and for myself at least the answer is: you can’t, and I don’t.
Do not assume that because caucus supports it, that it somehow then becomes every National Party member’s opinion. Many of us – particularly those of us who actually have seen or used a party pill have absolutely no problem with party pills,
As a liberal, applying the longstanding National principles of personal responsibility and respect for the choices of the individual – there are no grounds for banning the pills. If we applied the same level of scrutiny to cigarettes and alcohol that have recently been applied to party pills I think you’d find both of them would far exceed party pills in terms of harm to individuals.
To see any potential for harm and decide to ban it altogether is such a blunt instrument, and in this case is incredibly arbitrary. If I applied the same reasoning – I could solve the road toll in New Zealand. We would be free of that lovely advertisement with the happy family smashing into the power poles; we wouldn’t need any more policemen coming to teach kids about crossing the roads, there would be no more traffic police.
I would just ban cars. Road toll solved, no deaths – no problem.
Another issue that should be close to the hearts of any liberal wing is the failure to recognize Maori customary title to what in reality will be tiny stretches of foreshore and seabed; the line instead being that the beaches belong to “us”.
I’m still not sure who was meant by “us”.
To then join Federated Farmers in their outraged stance about public access over farmland infringing property rights whilst Maori customary rights are ignored just isn’t consistent to me. I agree about property rights. But I want them enforced for everyone. I want National to take the right stance over the expedient one. National has to explain to the public why when you protect a right for someone, it in turn protects your rights. “Property Rights Karma.”
I was born in February of 1986. I am 21 years old. I don’t remember Muldoon. I don’t remember a time when homosexuality was illegal; I’ve never had to fight for women’s rights. I don’t even remember an alternative to MMP.
The issues that face New Zealand youth today are different. We are not going to get caught up over the same issues that have polarized New Zealand in recent years. My class at intermediate was half Maori, a quarter recent immigrants, and a quarter pakeha. Young people today are used to a multicultural New Zealand. We have never known it any other way. The ‘Winston Peters’ attitude towards immigration isn’t relevant to us.
So can National be liberal? Yes. Keeping National’s liberal roots is incredibly important to me – should be to all members and supporters of this Party. We need liberals in National, and we need them to speak up. Property rights, individual responsibility, giving power back to communities – these are important values worth protecting.
I’ve quoted a lot, because there is so much good stuff there. It’s not all critical of course, and Anna also speaks of her support for National on lower taxes, free trade, better rewards for entrepreneurs and less state control of the economy.
The next Blue Libs seminar is in June on “The Role of Government” and “National Identity”. The third seminar in October will be on “Property Rights”.
Tags: National
May 29th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
If liberalism is at the centre of political life and national direction, it is where it is of civil liberties and human rights – the equal political citizenship of the individual of the democracy.
However when it champions an ideology more than the person, a regime of rule more than human dignity, it is corrupted into a creature of minority self interest. Becoming the politics of inaction/neglect, only because action is good for the greatest number rather than the minority self interest. When liberalism becomes the servant of an elitist oligarchy, it protects the few rather than empowers the many.
Muldoon protected the chosen ones from the free market and offered favours, he then claimed he did this for the national good. But today’s free market has it’s own chosen ones (those protected from inflation and capital gains taxes while exporters suffer the high dollar used to restrain it).
Vote:May 29th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
“She also usefully reminded us that core NZ Labour principles remain “To ensure the just distribution of the production and services of the nation for the benefit of all people” and “To educate the public in the principles and objectives of democratic socialism and economic and social cooperation”.
Did she say it in a sense of positive affirmation or a warning…? If the later then good….Socialist shit needs understanding and attacking on principle.If the former then there’s the crack in an otherwise principled and encouraging armour plate of Liberal principle…
Vote:May 29th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Personally, I find the burgeoning number of social-liberals joining National to be somewhat of an annoyance…
But each to their own.
Vote:May 29th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
The quotes illustrate Prebble’s point when he said, “politics is hard,” meaning that you’re constantly balancing opposing rational viewpoints.
With all due respect, Anna’s views whilst earnest appear naive and from one who is very young.
If the blue libs are to succeed, they need to promulgate much more sophisticated perspectives.
Vote:May 29th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Sorry Mr. Farrar. Can’t share your enthusiasm for any of these people. Their logic has holes you could drive a truck through. (example- Farmers (with crown title) and Maoris (with ephemeral “customary rights”), have the same rights to land.
“Chris rejected US definitions”. I’ll bet he did, but on what grounds???
“National ran to the moral conservatives” WTF does that mean?? IMHO, they’ve never run to any conservatives, and I don’t know what a “moral conservative” might be (worse, the implication is there are such things as “immoral conservatives” – the mind boggles). I just don’t know why (if it wasn’t just out of desperation) a Conservative, (pro family, small government, low taxes, respect for religion and individual sovereignty, property rights and freedom) would ever vote for today’s Nats- the people who initiated the NCEA, the RMA, the Treaty Commission and so many other attacks on NZ’s traditional culture.
The reality is this. These people (Blue libs) have so little actual understanding of and regard for the foundations of liberty and individual sovereignty they should be in the Labour party. Anna (to me) just sounds like a brainwashed leftist. If she is going to be the face of the future National party than democracy in NZ is up shit creek without a paddle. ..but hell, I always knew that anyway.
Vote:May 29th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
I think some of these trolls are confused about what a liberal is. They might even find that they’re one themselves! Well… sort of, anyway…
There are two choices in politics, liberalism, where the state has less control over your life, or authoritarianism, where the state has more. I know which side I am on. I worry about the National Party though…
We need more people like Miss Nuzum in National. I wish my gag reflex was sufficiently weak.
Vote:May 29th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Actually, to be fair, I should point out that the Waitangi Tribunal (which I wrongly referred to as a commission) was a Labour Party initiative. I made an error in attributing its origins to National. Nevertheless, my point is the Nats over a long period actively encouraged what in my opinion is a country splitting farce, when if they’d had the nouse, they could have dampened the whole thing down.
Miss Nuzum just sounds politically correct.
BTW Blair. I’m pretty sure I’m not a so called “liberal”. Never wanted to belong to any cliquey trendy group, and especially one that always seems so confused over what they stand for. I’m a Conservative.
Vote:May 29th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
A liberal realises that property rights are for all, a conservative recognises property rights from when they began to own propoerty. In this case property rights once post iwi ownership.
Vote:May 29th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
It’s actually very very sad that there are so many cretins out there that believe this liberal rubbish.
Vote:May 29th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
SPC: I don’t agree with your definition.
A liberal believes in freedom and getting the govt out of people’s lives. As Anna has pointed out, this should include both the economic and social spheres. For example, telling people what they can wear is something I am wary of.
I don’t think a liberal “realises that property rights are for all”. If that means that I have “property rights” when I don’t own property, then it is woolly collectivist thinking.
A liberal recognises that we had a law that may or may not have given Maori customary rights over beaches. If they had that right, then it was a property right the same as the property right anybody else has. If they could prove that right in a court of law then nobody should stand in their way.
The govt equally has a right of compulsory acquisition. So if some Maori managed to demonstrate that they had customary rights over foreshore, the govt could (then and only then) have chosen to acquire that foreshore back, with appropriate compensation. Or could have negotiated with those having the customary right to retain foreshore access for the general public. Or could have accepted (further) small segments of our foreshore as becoming privately owned/controlled.
I think that the blue libs are a great step forward. National needs to broaden its vote base, particularly among women and the young. Women and the young are interested in social liberalism, men and the old tend to be conservatives and against it. The reality is that those conservative votes have nowhere to go. They can gnash their teeth and complain about how society is going down the drain, but ultimately they will vote for one of the parties of the right, and will end up supporting a National govt. And probably will learn that the nice gay couple next door with the civil union don’t really weaken their own marriage at all.
Redbaiter, good to see you are consistent in your belief that anybody who believes in individual social freedom belongs in the Labour party. Moral conservative refers to those who are conservative about morals. Not so hard really is it?
Vote:May 29th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
“Redbaiter, good to see you are consistent in your belief that anybody who believes in individual social freedom belongs in the Labour party.”
What is it with you people that you continually seek to misrepresent the position of others. Is it an attention seeking device?
Especially when what I actually said was this, “(Blue libs) have so little actual understanding of and regard for the foundations of liberty and individual sovereignty they should be in the Labour party.”. How anyone could construe this to mean what you claim it does PaulL is just inexplicable. I guess you’re just one more logically dyslexic leftist. As well as arrogant and so damn patronising.
Vote:May 30th, 2007 at 12:08 am
“As well as arrogant and so damn patronising.”
Heh. Looking in the mirror there are you?
“How anyone could construe this to mean what you claim it does PaulL is just inexplicable.”
How I construe it this way is pretty simple.
“little actual understanding of and regard for the foundations of liberty and individual sovereignty”
Paraphrase: Anna believes in social freedoms, you don’t agree with her
“they should be in the Labour party.”
Paraphrase: Anna belongs in the Labour party.
Putting that together in little steps: Anna believes in social freedoms and therefore belongs in the Labour party.
I guess your definition of inexplicable is different to mine. To me it means “cannot be explained.”
Perhaps it is your communication style that doesn’t work, since I see a lot of other people who interpret it the way I do. Should we take a vote?
Vote:May 30th, 2007 at 12:10 am
Well, good luck to them. But they’ll struggle to be heard in the National party.
Don Brash had ‘liberal’ views on a range of issues, but kept quiet about them – or ‘changed’ them, for electoral purposes. If even the leader feels he has to sacrifice his liberal principles, what chance do the ordinary members have?
A right wing party is an unhappy home for those who put freedom ahead of fear. They will always be drowned out by a cacophany of jerking conservative knees.
Vote:May 30th, 2007 at 12:18 am
“Paraphrase:”
Yep, I was right. You’re just another deranged attention seeker. You really expect a sane person to put time and effort into dealing with such contrived illogical infantile rubbish? Good grief.
“Shall we take a vote”
Another sick leftist perception, the belief that a majority agreement makes your view correct. Go away Paul. You’re not challenging. You’re just terminally stupid and so predictable you bore me to tears.
Vote:May 30th, 2007 at 12:25 am
Now, let me remember what you told me when I said almost exactly the same things about you? Oh, that is right. I’m filling in time until my ride comes to take me home, nobody is holding a gun to your head and making you read my posts.
Why did I suggest a vote? Communication involves other people hearing what you intended to say. If you write something and people interpret something entirely different than you intended, then you are not communicating. If most of the people here interpret what I do, and you meant something entirely different, then you probably should think about how you are communicating.
Are you suggesting instead that it is irrelevant whether other people interpret what you say in the way you intended? If so, why on earth do you bother commenting?
Vote:May 30th, 2007 at 12:41 am
The elevation of any social group (example Maori or homosexuals) to a status above that of every other person is fascist, not liberal.
Attacking NZ’s traditional Christian /European heritage is Marxist, not liberal.
Feminism also has its origins in Marxism, in that its one more attack on the idea of the nuclear family. Its not liberal, its anti liberal, in that it strikes at the core values held dear by the immigrants who landed here in the 19th century to establish a truly free and democratic society, (and showed that it could be done.)
It seems to me that paramount in everyone who today assumes the title of liberal is the issue of homosexuality. Why for god’s sake?? Why aren’t they talking about limited government and low taxation. It seems to me that the first priority of any real liberal is an immediate reduction in the size of the state. Probably in the first instance down to about 25% of the size it is today. Instead, all we ever seem to get is whine whine whine about damn queers. I say it again, I don’t think these people are true liberals.
Vote:May 30th, 2007 at 12:53 am
I didn’t see anybody advocating raising another group to a status above that of every other person. Civil unions, for example, apply to everyone. I think you are projecting values onto people when they didn’t state those values at all. I saw nothing in Anna’s speech that pointed to that, perhaps you could point to the passage?
Characterising tolerance or acceptance of other religious beliefs as “attacking NZ’s Christian/European heritage” is, to my mind, very naive. A description that you made above about someone else.
Where feminism’s roots come from is irrelevant to what a particular individual believes. If Anna believes in a smaller state and economic freedom (her speech says she does) then her home is in the National party. If she also believes in some social freedoms, then that is a point of difference with some others in National, and that would be why the blue libs are talking about it. They are taking the smaller govt and smaller tax take for granted as a base characteristic of a National party member.
I don’t think that you are a true liberal because you only ever look at one dimension of liberalism. But hey, that is just my opinion. I also think that your economic suggestions would place you well to the right of National’s historic and current political position. Maybe it isn’t Anna who is in the wrong party but you? There actually isn’t a party that represents that belief as I have interpreted it, since ACT is socially liberal, as are the libertarianz. I can see why you are so frustrated – perhaps you should start a new party?
Vote:May 30th, 2007 at 1:01 am
“don’t think that you are a true liberal because you only ever look at one dimension of liberalism.”
You’re absolutely hopeless. I don’t claim to be. Jezuzz wept, just read and comprehend for once. Also, why are you so insistent on making every post about Redbaiter? Get a life you boring boring boring weirdo obsessive.
Vote:May 30th, 2007 at 1:10 am
Gee, I dunno Redbaiter. Maybe because you insist on making every comment about me. I commented one line on something you said, you turned it into a whole long thread about how you thought I was “arrogant and patronising.” I have the time to kill, so I followed it where you took it.
In general, I just comment on the comments I read, yours the same as I do for any others. Yours are vaguely coherent (I don’t usually bother commenting on sonic or phil), but also usually have a pretty weird perspective. So I comment. That’s what blogs are about aren’t they? You’re the only one that gets excited about it – other people seem to be able to engage in dialogue without being rude.
But, again, I’m not holding a gun to your head and making you read. Shall I link to where you told me that?
Vote:May 30th, 2007 at 1:14 am
PS: you are correct that you clearly stated you are a conservative, not a liberal. My mistake. The rest of my comment stands, I think you live out to the right of the National party, and wouldn’t have a home with ACT or the Libertarianz. So where will you go? It is clear that National is moving to the centre, not where you would want them to go.
Vote:May 30th, 2007 at 7:00 am
Where will the homeless of the Right go?
To Destiny.
Vote:May 30th, 2007 at 7:55 am
I have been to perhaps hundreds of National Party meetings and conferences and I am sure David has as well. I regard the National Party as liberal, tolerant, and above all practical in its policies. The National Party dislikes extremism in any form left or right. I can pretty well predict what that National Party will and will not accept in a remit debate, and while on some issues the National Party ias behind it quickly catches up adopts adapts and moves on. The theme of personal freedom and individual repsonsibility runs strong in the party. The sort of people who paint the National Party as reactionary and conservative are Labour Party people who never go to National Party meetings. I regard the Labour Party as conservative, full of hate and prejudice, controlling and manipulative.
Vote:May 30th, 2007 at 8:02 am
I agree Tim. I have absolutely no problem with any National Party members I have met or who are my friends.
However I find that the Blue Libs is more about finding a home for the ex ACT members than anything else. If ACT had more MPs, I would see them working with National like how the current Australian Govt works in coalition.
Vote:May 30th, 2007 at 9:02 am
I really like what Chris Finlayson had to say — he seemed to be arguing for the freedom of the individual (which is a liberal principle) and scepticism about the power of the State to solve every problem (which is a conservative one). His thesis appears to be that the National party has room for both viewpoints — liberal and conservative.
I must confess that I personally have become disenchanted with liberalism. With its insistence on homosexual rights etc etc, freedom of individuals to do anything no matter how destructive, I think it has run its course. It has degenerated into libertarianism — just do whatever you want because I don’t care, and freedom from all restraint — in other words complete license.
Vote:I think Chris had something to say on conservatism — that the power of the State is limited. I think there are other conservative principles which could be mentioned — respect for property rights, a love for our country and its history and traditions, a belief that morality exists — there is such a thing as good and evil. Also a conservative wants to conserve what has gone before. So conservatives understand that our ancestors knew something that we can learn from. That guided by longstanding and well tested principles, they built a tremendous nation.
Therefore conservatives are suspicious about radical new innovations. They do not want to legislate for everything. They believe human nature is fallible and a radical new idea (for example any of Labour’s social engineering initiatives) represents at best the untested wisdom of a single generation and at worst the preferences of one person.
So I would like to see the National party return to its roots — defend the realm; provide a limited welfare net — a hand up, not handouts; enforce the rule of law and allow society to function without thinking the State has to be involved in everything. Also respect our traditions and if at all possible rollback Labour’s illiberal social engineering.
May 30th, 2007 at 9:21 am
Where are the blue libz ever time Jackie Dean gets out there to compare BZP to rape and murder?
Vote:May 30th, 2007 at 9:40 am
Another striking incongruity in the position of these people is their professed regard for multi-culturalism. How can promoting an influx of people from cultures that are intolerant of the ideas that Anna claims to stand for be helpful to her cause? (for a stark example Middle Eastern cultures are generally not going to go along with her ideas on feminism) Beats me how they rationalize this. (Unless they’re leftists, where reason is never a big influence on their thinking)
Vote:May 30th, 2007 at 10:26 am
What a glorious creature the National Party is, to be able to tolerate the limp-wristed “give gang members rights” brigade, as well as the lock-em-up camp.
Personally, I think social liberalism is a waste of space, panders to the freaks in society, and diverts away from the good, solid conservative foundations of society.
But at least the National Party can find common ground between the two groups economically: the Labour Party has systematically pursued a scorched-earth policy to exterminate anybody who disagrees with Helen Clark.
Vote:May 30th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
PaulL
“SPC: I don’t agree with your definition. A liberal believes in freedom and getting the govt out of people’s lives. As Anna has pointed out, this should include both the economic and social spheres. For example, telling people what they can wear is something I am wary of.”
Does my definition say otherwise?
“I don’t think a liberal (realises that property rights are for all) If that means that I have “property rights” when I don’t own property, then it is woolly collectivist thinking.
Your IF, not mine. It’s a straw man not one of my making.
I was raising the issue of Maori property.
“A liberal recognises that we had a law that may or may not have given Maori customary rights over beaches.”
I was not referring to customary rights, but owned property.
“If they had that right, then it was a property right the same as the property right anybody else has. If they could prove that right in a court of law then nobody should stand in their way.”
There are 3 areas of issue – owned property, commerical title (taken by the courts in the 1850′s and possibly subject to legal challenge), and customary title related customary rights.
“The govt equally has a right of compulsory acquisition.”
The problem is over how easily Maori land was chosen for this rather than privately (single title) owned land, as if one was a lesser ownership than the other.
“So if some Maori managed to demonstrate that they had customary rights over foreshore, the govt could (then and only then) have chosen to acquire that foreshore back, with appropriate compensation. Or could have negotiated with those having the customary right to retain foreshore access for the general public. Or could have accepted (further) small segments of our foreshore as becoming privately owned/controlled.”
I preferred public domain status. This left ownership out of the equation (Maori presume Crown refers to an other, when it is supposed to mean no private ownership, but public domain). Public domain does not of itself limit commerical title or customary title, it just prevents any land title. Under public domain the situation could have evolved under consultation over time.
Vote:May 30th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
I note how many of the economic liberals are social (morality issue) conservatives, as votes over the prostution reform, civil unions etc indicate.
I also note how little respect for the Treaty rights and property rights of Maori many economic liberals have.
This indicates how often philosophy is a servant of self interest – how those who feel best advantaged by a low tax high personal disposable income find economic liberalism convenient.
Most of the earliy “liberals” were traders in the colonial economy (and also social progressives – modernisers) – the conservative Tories were the landed gentry of the old order of rule (favouring protection from food imports).
Only the rise of Labour pushed them into a defensive coalition – one whose diverse origins are still apparent today in National. The knee jerk to appease the Christian faction is behind mein hosts’ attempt to pose some concern to respect some Christian heritage in our past.
Vote:May 30th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Anna would seem equally at home with the Green Libs, she would be able to smoke legal dak as well as take legal party pills( Wasn’t Nandor among the first retailers of them) or Libertarians, no rules, no boundaries, or perhaps Rainbow Nats,perhaps combine the lot and rename their philosophy Anarchism.
Vote:May 30th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
SPC – you can fuck off if you claim what I post is to appease any Christian faction.
Vote:May 30th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Don’t know “off” personally.
Are you then claiming to actually believe that there is some Christian heritage that the state should be recognising?
I find this logic more worrying than faction appeasment. All people do it to some degree, after all consensus building is premised on this.
Vote:May 30th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Putting aside the classic definition of Liberal, doesn’t it really depend on where you personally sit in the political spectrum?
After all, Ghangis Khan would probably define Hitler as a ‘Liberal’.
Vote:May 31st, 2007 at 2:44 am
By an accident od birth ,history, geography etc the European colonisers on this land were Christian, at least in name….but so what? We are here and now and the country is secular.Everyone who’s peaceful and courteous to others gets to pray or not as they wish….what more is needed?
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 12:53 am
Oh dear. This lib can only harp on about party pills…Can Anna and DPF please sod off to the ACT or Green party (make your choice) and stop embarrassing the National Party?
We don’t want your (admit it, leftist) liberal views infesting the right.
Vote:June 12th, 2007 at 8:06 am
lyfa hmzod cdhmwut txzghuy fexynrij cjdeir olxmt
Vote: