Senator TNF, why? :(

[ZuWo]

The point JoMCaR makes is hardly controversial but it applies to all major parties (except maybe the D-R's, who genuinely seem to be a united front), not just Labor.

Among the Federalists there is the obvious divide between social conservatives and those who emphasize their libertarian leanings. Economic and regional issues are still the main reasons why this coalition has been remarkably stable so far. However, it's still hard to see what the party as a whole stands far, especially when it comes to the federal level.

The People's Party is so extremely broad that it's surprising the party hasn't been ripped apart yet. Apparently no one considers it questionable to have a conservative regional executive in the Pacific and to run a candidate for Northeast Senate whose proposals even make socialists blush. Since most of its members are highly popular individuals the party doesn't suffer from its complete lack of a coherent ideology, though.
 
Finally, it would be silly to argue there isn't any kind of ideological divide within Labor. Clearly, there is a sizable number of unapologetic socialists on the one hand and more pragmatic social-democrats on the other hand. Members of the former group seem to be the ideological pacemakers, while the latter often content themselves with working to moderate the proposals put forward by the first group.

The Northeast Senate race sums up all of this very neatly; there is a Labor candidate who's probably very close ideologically to most TPP members, and there's the TPP candidate who fits in very nicely with the far left of the Labor Party. Yet, the leaders of each party immediately endorsed their own candidate, which shows this race is about party politics rather than ideology. Conservatives and centrists in the Northeast once more have the choice between voting for one of their own, abstaining or picking who they regard as the lesser evil. 
 
To cut a long story short, for most players being a member of a major party is still primarily a matter of picking a certain side and cheering for it (almost) no matter what - questions of ideology are secondary. Atlasia never changes!

[ZuWo]

With all due respect, building a party around the principle of "consideration and consensus" appears terribly shallow. See the example of the Senate - "consideration and consensus" are very widespread among nearly all Senators, regardless of their partisan affiliation. Most bills are extremely left-wing, yes, but there are usually lengthy debates full of consideration and consensus-building.

If the coherent message of the People's Party is supposed to be something that 90% of Atlasia's citizens can subscribe to, fair enough.

[ZuWo]

With all due respect, building a party around the principle of "consideration and consensus" appears terribly shallow. See the example of the Senate - "consideration and consensus" are very widespread among nearly all Senators, regardless of their partisan affiliation. Most bills are extremely left-wing, yes, but there are usually lengthy debates full of consideration and consensus-building.

If the coherent message of the People's Party is supposed to be something that 90% of Atlasia's citizens can subscribe to, fair enough.

TPP manages to rally around a set of policy points as well as a positive attitude/tone. It's something to be proud of, to be sure.

What policy points are written in a party's platform and what the individual members of said party actually stand for can often be very different. Perhaps I'm biased, perhaps I'm too dumb to grasp the underlying concept, but to me TPP means "whatever you want it to be". Don't get me wrong, I have a high opinion of most TPPers and would vote for them under certain circumstances but when I read "TPP" I instantly think "generally left of center but right-wingers and Trotskyists are welcome too". That, to me, sounds like the description of a social club rather than a party with a coherent message. But whatever, if that's what's trendy these days ...