Thursday, March 30, 2006

Liberal Conservatives or vice versa

This is an excerpt from Colin James' NZ Herald column Tuesday (premium content so no link).

"Last week he (National MP, Chris Finlayson) won approval from the party's board to set up a new group -- he is toying with calling it "liberal" or "liberal-conservative" -- with a formal place in the party structure and a role in delineating broad policy parameters and directions.

Finlayson's group succeeds an anaemic "classical liberal" group, which held a breakfast meeting at the 2004 conference but seemed unsure what it stood for. "Classical liberal" is more ACT's style (it calls itself plain "liberal") than National's, except for ACT's "tenth MP", Brash, and a handful of other caucus survivors of the 1990s."


Which word comes first must hold the key. Are they going to be liberal conservatives or conservative liberals? Or 50/50? Does anyone care? They should just call themselves the "compromisers" and have done with it.

2 comments:

J said...

Finlayson's group succeeds an anaemic "classical liberal" group, which held a breakfast meeting at the 2004 conference but seemed unsure what it stood for."

The same breakfast one Jim Peron spoke at and kicked arse!Brash was really taken with it and told me so.I made sure a copy of "The Liberal Tide" went home with him...;-)

Lindsay said...

I wish I'd been there. I figure if the classical liberal group didn't know "what it stood for" what chance this lot.