The media has been full of articles about our 'divided society' of urban and rural splits. Okay, but how valid is all this bewailing, and what are the implications? Clearly, Labour did lose provincial city support, but its core large urban support remained solid outside Auckland, as did its Maori, Pasifika and other constituencies. In Christchurch, Dunedin and Wellington, urban voters supported the Clark administration and its cultural politics. Under proportional representation, that's what happens. Large demographic concentrations rule. Provincial cities and rural domains have a population deficit, so MMP means that urban proportions are reproduced in voting figures. If I were National, I'd be concerned at the implications of this. It means that if its current intake of new MPs does not include significant numbers of new social liberals, then it may not win election in 2008. And, contrary to popular sentiment, there's nothing inevitable about a close run election result neccessarily meaning that the Opposition will win the next general election. In 1993, Labour almost defeated National, but three years of infighting meant that the first MMP election turned out to be a debacle for the Labour Party in 1996. Could National snatch defeat from the maw of victory? Possibly. Why is National alienating social liberals? Well, look at the last parliamentary term. It has systematically set out to pander to social conservatives, with tiny groups of liberal dissident MPs. In mid-September, female voters didn't vote National/ACT. That's dangerous for them. Its caucus needs to reflect demographic realities, as in the old feminist adage that women hold up half the sky. And, they vote. Labour/Green. As for Pasifika voters, electoral history might well trump religi ous adherence. If Labour delivers resources for Pasifika constituencies, then their communities will support it. Added to which, the Maori Party is an anchor that might well prevent populist racist excesses about turning back the clock on Treaty issues. At the moment, it might look as if Don Brash and company have returned to the status of a significant opposition. Yeah, but is that more apparent than actual? Does this neccessarily mean that Labour will lose the next general election? Does it neccessarily meant that LGBT communities will face resistance to further liberal social reforms? And will Labour neccessarily chose majorities of scale if they mean confidence and supply or coalition fragility? Why not exclude United Future this time? The Greens may end up with seven seats, which places them on a par with New Zealand First as the third largest parliamentary party in the country. If National loses a seat as a result, even New Zealand First support may not be as neccessary as it's looking now. That said, it's good to see Winston facing reality after he lost Tauranga to Bob Clarkson this time round. Why should an unrepresentative rural rump of overactive social conservative zealots dictate social reform prospects, just because they're being bankrolled or otherwise resourced from aggressive religious interests outside this country? And if exit polls show that Brethrengate might have tipped undecided urban voters against National, then what? We live in a divided society, yes- but why surrender to unproven and unworkable social conservative philosophies that have ill-served the people of New Orleans, for example? Colin James and other apologists for rural social conservatism have got it the wrong way around. If New Zealand is a divided country, then presumably, urban social liberals find rural backwardness as scary as their alleged rural counterparts find urban social liberalism. I tend to agree with Matt McCarten. Don't let up, Helen. Labour and the centre-left stand for inclusivism. If the Nats can't get their heads around the neccessity and existence of urban social change, then prophecies of their resurrection may prove premature. Sources: National Business Review: http://www.nbr.co.nz NZ Herald: http://www.nzherald.co.nz INL Fairfax Papers: http://www.stuff.co.nz Craig Young - 29th September 2005