If you don’t want commenters reducing your views to an absolutist form, it’s probably best not to do the same thing yourself. For example: “Selecting candidates purely on the basis of electability rather than ability is best left to fans of Winston politics.” There is a middle ground, as you well know, between the Wgtn Central / Franks approach and the Winston approach. If you choose to ignore the middle ground there, don’t be surprised when your commenters do the same to your comments.

If you don’t want people making group-based generalizations from individual decisions, it’s probably best not to do that yourself either. For example: “Stephen did not win because he is a former ACT MP. He won despite that.” and “so many delegates voted for Stephen is that they believe he will be an excellent MP” or more recently “I don’t think how people voted on prostitution law reform… will be as important to most WC voters as issues such as the politicisation of the public sector.” (And if your planned response is “that isn’t ‘speaking on behalf’, that is ‘my perspective on the dominant factors’”, then my reply would be “that’s all I was doing, too, so quit complaining about it.”)

Finally, if you really do believe that all lefties are “groupists” because they examine things in terms of groups and not individuals, as you imply, then aren’t you thinking of them as a group, making you by your own logic a groupist and therefore a leftie?

[DPF: Heh fair points. We all use groups to some degree. I think one of the left vs right differences is the rights prefer individual targeting when possible such as individually mean tested subsidised health cards vs targetting the subsidy based on how many poor people and Maori live in a particular area.]

I think I understand now: local National members, having conceded – as you have – that National is unlikely to win Wellington Central, picked a hard right candidate solely because they think he would be a good MP, rather than because they thought that others would think he’d be a good MP. They selected him for Wellington Central not to try and win the electorate and not even to try and win votes in the electorate (even though your earlier comment about Franks’ selection emphasized the party vote over the electorate vote). Instead they selected him as a strategic vote of confidence in Franks directed at the National Party’s various list ranking mechanisms. After all, the list is essentially the only way now that Franks will return to Parliament.

Here’s my question: why go through the charade of nominating him for an electorate that he clearly ill-suited to campaign in? Why not just lobby aggressively for him at the regional list meeting? Surely that is just as clear of a signal to the list ranking people. [I remember at one point seeing some internal National guideline about those running in electorates getting higher priority when the list rankings are done. If that is still the rule, then my question becomes: isn’t that a silly rule, precisely because of situations like this one?]

For myself, I think that having at least some regard for the views of the constituency you’re going to try and represent is a pretty good and pretty democratic idea, and does not (as you accuse) imply a swift descent into the sinful den of Winstonian baublery. You don’t have to be purely Burkian to be partly Burkian. Evidently the Wellington Central branch of the National Party disagrees. OK.

[DPF: I think you are taking my comments to an absolutist position which is not justified. First of all I can;t and do not speak on behalf of the 60 delegates who would have had a variety of reasons for why they voted. I can only give my perspective on what I thought were dominant factors.

I also think you and others are taking the "perceived fit" to almost a stereotypical degree. Wgtn Central is not just Aro Valley. I don't think how people voted on prostitution law reform (and I was a active supporter of that law change) will be as important to most WC voters as issues such as the politicisation of the public sector (for example).

You keep applying a groupist thinking (being a leftie no surprise) to what was 60 individual decisions on how to vote, and to how 40,000 WC voters may vote and react.

Finally with just five exceptions, no one can be a list candidate unless they are also an electorate candidate for National.]

I thought one of the flaws is the H1,H2,Cullen administration was the refusal to allow dissent in their ranks.

It seems to me that good decisions automatically follow the balanced consideration of differing points of view at the table, even though that may not always be comfortable.

This is the one thing that Helen Clark was proven for us and so the “fault” seen in Franks; (=the maverick Stephen Franks in Parliament is likely to be more trouble for Key and English than he’s worth. The new National Government will be governing in a centrist manner, and Franks will be constantly sticking his head up to say “But what about property rights?!!”) may in fact, be part of a more balanced administration.

I’d say hes more of a social regressive myself…

And the way to ensure that he does indeed return is to give our Party vote to National rather than a Party currently polling in the 0-1% margin of error.

Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz

[DPF: One could advocate that it is no bad thing having someone say what about property rights, and if they did then maybe National's position on Foreshore & Seabed Bill may have been different]

I don’t think I would be too happy if I were Franks as much as I think he is very talented and would be an excellent MP, again!

I’m not really trying to get an argument going about which of the two types of liberalism is best (although obviously I’m a “social liberal”) but just to point out that Franks “classical liberal” politics are probably repellent to a lot of the Wellington Central electorate, which I would define as being much more “socially liberal” than “classically liberal”.

The examples that have applied here are prostitution, abortion and homosexuality. In these three cases it *appears* that Stephen Franks is quite likely to oppose legislation that liberalises these areas *if* the same legislation has *any* negative impact on the rights of property owners (even if those impacts are relatively insignificant). My feeling is that most Wellington Central voters would find such a stance abhorrent. Many would presume from all of this that Franks simply sides with the rich over fundamental human rights.

For what it’s worth, my experience is that Stephen Franks is a fairly nice guy and extremely talented. But my basic point is that he’s a “social conservative” (albeit also a “classical liberal”) and Wellington Central ain’t.

Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz

[DPF: I have no time or desire to be involved with any campaign. I know quite a few candidates who may bounce ideas and advice off me from time to time, and that is about as far as it would go. And Tim I value my credibility far more than being one of those drones who insists a seat is marginal when it isn't. That is not to say I have ruled out or conceded the seat - you are twisting my words. And finally it is the party vote that matters much more under MMP so frankly whether or not someone thinks an electorate seat is marginal has little bearing on whether or not they should be involved in a campaign.]

Put another way, if National really wanted to run up the party vote in a centre-left leaning electorate, wouldn’t it have made more sense to nominate a candidate whose views better mirror those of the electorate (i.e. a centrist)?

[DPF: First of all I don't think anyone can say with certainty that Candidate X will affect party votes greatly. Party Leaders and policies and media coverage of Parliament have by far the largest effect. Even if a candidate in one seat may move the party vote 3% or so, then that is just 0.05% of the total party vote. Secondly a strong candidate can attract votes even if people disagree with some of their policies. We see this in many electorates, so I think people are overplaying how influential someone's perceived political position is as a factor. Finally the point I was making is that even *if* one accepts your arguments, people also make judgements on how good an MP someone will be. And so they should. Selecting candidates purely on the basis of electability rather than ability is best left to fans of Winston politics. Now that is not to say all three candidates would not make very good MPs. But Stephen in my opinion impressed as someone who was and will be an excellent MP]

First of all I would make the observation that Stephen did not win because he is a former ACT MP. He won despite that. And he won on the first ballot in an electorate where the party membership is relatively liberal.

Secondly (and this is a personal view) I think Grant Robertson is likely to win the seat, regardless of who the candidate is. The party vote for parties of the left is very high in Wellington Central. Of course things can change in a campaign, but regardless the party vote is the key target.

Thirdly I (personally again) would accept that Stephen as a candidate might arguably not be as successful in attracting centrist voters as some others might be. I am sure Grant R has a long long list of quotes from Stephen as an ACT MP, which he will have fun using in debates etc. Against that Stephen has experience and profile and an in depth knowledge of the Electoral Finance Act which is a nightmare for candidates who are not MPs.

Fourthly – the reason I believe that so many delegates voted for Stephen is that they believe he will be an excellent MP, who will add considerable strength to National’s team. He is one of the top commercial lawyers in NZ (and a former member of the Securities Commission). He has a great track record at exposing the weakness in legislation (something useful in Govt as well as Opposition) and in areas such as law & order he has a wealth of knowledge. Not everyone will agree with him, but he knows the reality behind the spin in terms of how probation and parole work and do not work.

This one would. And a landlord could also discriminate against hetero tenants, or religious tenants or anyone else they wanted to. Its called freedom of the individual which is why I fully support the right of a Melbourne bar to admit homosexuals only. Of course social pressure could find them out, or market pressure as they may have a limited pool of potential tenants|clients. State pressure should not feature in determining how individuals arrange their lives as long as they are not physically or materially harming others.

So what you’re saying is that the US should not have passed laws saying that bus companies weren’t allowed to make niggers sit at the back of the bus, or that private schools could not have the choice to enrol only white students. Damn government setting back classical liberalism and forcing social morals on bigoted individuals.

I like Stephen, he is as others have said, an asset to parliament. I’m not sure that means he’ll be an asset to National.

According to his blog, Frank used to be a leftie before he saw the light. So judging by that he’s probably not a hardcore conservative on social issues. And to that point the Act party aren’t exactly known for their conservative social views. In fact the only hardcore conservative social party is Destiny et al. & they’re not in parliament.