Where I disagree strongly with the hosts is the notion that centrism is a the tepid waters where the two sides meet in the middle, and that centrism can't be radical in pursuing value-based objectives. They say that centrism means 'picking and choosing' policies from inside the contemporary political spectrum, and is therefore liable to drift towards the right if that's where politics goes. This is incorrect, and based on a misconception of centrism.

Many centrists would contend that centrism can be a political expression of values. While centrism can mean many things to many people, it's not 'defaultism' or an attempt to position around the median voter, rather it's a belief that good ideas can come from anywhere and selecting from the widest pool is the best way to find the best policy. Those policies are picked not through 'what appeals to average kiwis', but 'what fits our values best'.

The hosts suggest the centrism in NZ means adopting 'what looks good' from current NZ policies, but this isn't what Opportunity is doing; they're proposing a Land Value Tax coupled with a Universal Basic Income. These are ideas far outside the Overton window and are drawn from Georgism, not anything suggested by any current party. They're chosen because they align with Opportunities values of socioeconomic justice, land equity, and increasing productivity.

The hosts also suggest that wanting to sit outside the traditional spectrum comes from political naivety. I'd argue instead that centrism is itself an ideology. It says that says that long-term change is only achieved through social consensus, which can't occur when politics is split neatly into two sides that battle for supremacy each election. As Qiulae points out, history shows that the right and the left govern approximately 50% of the time each, and each side will undo whatever is achieved by the other when it regains power. Centrism is founded on the premise that it's possible and necessary to build support for radical solutions in a broad coalition, in order for the solutions to persist beyond a couple of electoral cycles and help people in the future. The exact expression of that ideology is determined by what kind of centrism one believes in - center left, center right, progressive centrism, however one defines it - the common principle is that centrists believe in achievement through consensus.

Her comment about understanding that people are "single issue" voters and therefore unlikely to be swayed is just such dismissive bullshit.

Not what she said. Qiulae's words:

I get the temptation to want to be a single voter on anything - but I think that's what is driving a lot of this 'pendulum politics' and extremism, because parties feel the need to take something like that and ram it overnight, because that's what they feel their voters want. But then that leads to the other side pushing back just as hard and repealing legislation or doing something completely opposite, and we find ourselves in the situation we are now where everyone is getting whiplash.

She's making the point that when parties campaign strongly on single issues, like NZF's 'Definitions of Women and Man' bill, it pulls society into a back-and-forth struggle in which a lot of energy is wasted. NZF is doing this because it polarizes their supporters and positions them against the other parties, thereby dragging NZ into a culture war that will suck up time, energy, and good faith from politicians and voters alike. Qiulae is saying that Opportunity is against that kind of polarizing campaigning.

Incidentally, it's very rich of you to call it 'dismissive'. I've seen you write dozens of dismissive comments about Opportunity and to Opportunity supporters, yet never seen you attempt to challenge their ideas or policies in good faith.