There are competing views as to where material progress should head and within those views are social issues and their social relations to the material economy. The dictate of majority issues however doesn't conform to a logical outcome of a definite direction as we have witnessed under MMP post-election 2017.

Keeping in mind that material progress is the linear economy based on the material alone. A holistic one would include implementation of spiritual growth illustrated by moral issues and social values. Instead the logic of the material gives rise to the abstract nature of the entity. Human development is neglected and wonder why mental illness and its escalation is rampant.

I must say even I have missed that old school linear rule. Now is not so straight forward anymore.

It has confirmed that Democracy is not determined by linear abstract numbers, rather by a share of proportional representation of issues.

The one point is clear: proportional is not linear; having a majority to represent the same thing is not proportional, therefore not democratic. And here lies a resolution that is proportional to the outcome. A resolution that is not relevant to a linear majority.

Many people with different issues come together to find an objective outcome is different from many people with the same issue come together to dictate their rule.

And MMP is the environment for compromise and negotiation. It bears an aspect of uncertainty when agreements are not met but only secures by requiring further debate. A linear aspect on the other hand may have a majority vote for a rigid regulation that imposes unreasonable social outcomes without debate.

And there Democracy means more people are represented by proportional representation of issues that are subject to thorough debate.

So FPP has that layabout way of majority dictate while MMP requires active participation in debate and representation. May be we need more parties to account for the minority of unrepresented views in a system that is made easier and flexible for participation. The outcome of this should prepare everyone including children to learn and participate in the future.

And that is perhaps something conservatives have to think about. Diversify and representation but also willing to compromise. It is a move from its traditional post to more of a social role.

So it is timely that a growing population waited for this moment to rise and be counted necessarily realising changes. It is time for conservatives to realise the same changes.

If conservative therefore develops a human face of the linear material, then it has to develop a social side. And that I have referred to Social Conservativism.

I think it would be a staunch attitude for example to stick with an anti-climate mantra when the consequences are obvious in everyday life. It goes without saying that the polarisation of crucial issues serves to maintain the political divide; one side more humane while the other seems more radical.

This challenge has been accepted by the threesome alliance to made effective modification to the status quo.

And if Ms. Jacinda Ardern is any indication of things to come, radical conservative is certain to strive against the current of popular opinions. It may influence them to drive its cold linear monetary economy for the private sector, once again depriving ordinary folks despite admittance that neo liberalism doesn't work. Take a look at housing and you might see reality among the deprived.

However at this point in time and place, progress has favoured a more human face of material development. For conservatives to be a future force therefore has to follow the same route away from its linear drive - from pure conservatives to Social Conservatives.

This not only renders the organisation relevant to time, but also has to provide a better condition for humanity than what pure capitalism has offered.

It's a giant leap but one with relevance and certainty. This is the crucial change conservative had to make in order to attract voters. It is where folks are still buried under the social consequences of linear materialism to see any forth coming changes in a fourth term.

It is where the image must relate and be compatible with the social reality of time. I am not going to suggest anyone, but an artist can naturally align nature to portray a holistic presentation to complete the picture.

The modern social environment doesn't suggest conservatives to limp from the harsh cold of pure capitalism when the threesome alliance only had to put a human face on the material. But at the same time it has to pursue a different angle to the same thing and distinguish itself from others.

A good start would be to remove the colour of ethnicity away from ideology. It is the tone that shades polarisation stigma. It is then that the divide is no longer structured upon racial boundaries. But by with this approach, sensitivity to economic relations is inherent.

There is certainly something beautiful about this government already. The way its showing that human side of the material is hard to think of losing in the future if it should stick to it.

At the same time, I favoured conservative's business stand where folks help themselves, but for the last eight years, not only regulations were made to help business, businesses were the only ones helping themselves.

And from this point onward, it looks like compromise and negotiations are debated on our behalf for the better.