Another thought on NZ Labour’s “mandate”, & what it could do in the next 3 yrs (maybe an obvious one) — govts are never entirely boxed in by manifesto commitments+the reasons people voted them in. Govts also have to respond to needs that emerge&events that can’t be predicted. /1

The wage subsidy wasn’t in Labour’s 2017 manifesto or part of the reasons why people voted for Labour in 2017 - to take an example. People vote for politicians who - they know - will have to respond to new problems or unforeseen challenges that crop up over an electoral term. /2

Here’s where people outside of Parliament come in - “new problems” don’t always fall out of the sky or come from underground, though sometimes they do. Campaigners+activists can spotlight why things (like dental health or levels of social security) are reaching a crisis point. /3

What’s a “new problem” or a priority that the govt has to address isn’t a given; it’s something we shape - by pointing to stories of clear injustice or failings, by building an evidence base, by showing what will happen if an issue is left unaddressed over time ... /4

You say, sure, things come up - but why people voted for a party or what’s in the manifesto shapes how a govt shd approach the new problem. On this I think Labour’s telegraphed a desire to address long-standing issues & a desire to be stable - so I don’t think that settles it. /5

Working out Labour’s legitimate mandate for some people seems weirdly to have parallels with “originalism” in US constitutional interpretation - find the original intentions of voters or Labour politicians, and use those intentions/motivations as the guide. /6

All I’m saying - and it’s probably a boring and hardly new point - it would be wrong for those motivations of voters or details of the manifesto to be seen as the ceiling or limit of what a govt can do. (And this is separate from predicting whether the Govt will be bold ...) /7