Labour leader Andrew Little knows better than to use idealogical terms such as "neoliberalism" when speaking to the press.

OPINION: If you are one of those unfortunate people with an interest in politics, you probably hear the word "neoliberal" thrown around with great frequency.

Despite this, the term is only very rarely used by those said to be neoliberal. Like the phrase "trickle-down economics", neoliberalism seems to be a word for critics and not for advocates.

Remember when Eleanor Catton denigrated New Zealand to a foreign audience in 2015? After cataloguing our collective failures, she ended with a denunciation of the "neo-liberal" politicians we have repeatedly elected to office. It caused a big fuss back home. But what did her criticism mean?

In truth, it is hard to say. If you turn to the glossary of my old POLS 111 textbook, you will see the following definition for neoliberalism: "An updated version of classical economy, dedicated to market individualism and minimal states."

READ MORE:

* Eleanor Catton's problem with New Zealand

* The Greens have gone neoliberal

​* Chris Trotter: New Zealand's 'golden dawn' of neoliberalism

This is all very neat and concise, of course, but it's a bit abstract. It doesn't tell us much about what "neoliberalism" means for the real world.

As far as actual policy goes, one very tidy expression of the neoliberal project is known as the "Washington Consensus", a set of policy prescriptions that were developed to help cure stagnating national economies. As summarised by English economist John Williamson, who coined the term, this involved governments:

Avoiding large fiscal deficits;

Eschewing subsidies in favour of spending on infrastructure and primary education and healthcare;

Implementing moderate tax rates over a broader tax base;

Allowing interest rates to be set by the market;

Adopting a competitive exchange rate;

Liberalising trade and not interfering with imports into the country;

Encouraging foreign investment;

Privatising state owned businesses;

Eliminating regulations that restrict competition (while retaining those which protect the environment and safety); and

Protecting legal property rights.

These policies are not a complete account of the neoliberal policy agenda. Undoubtedly the examples given above will generate some consternation from those claiming that they are only the most benign examples of what neoliberalism is all about.

There is probably something to that criticism but the reality is that political communication is so plagued by overlapping concepts and vague terminology that we often find ourselves talking across each other.

However incomplete, it cannot be denied that the principles outlined above animated the reforms of the fourth Labour government and the succeeding National government. As those who rail against neoliberalism usually talk about repudiating or undoing the legacies of those governments, it is a useful list for considering just what is being criticised. When veteran Leftwing columnist Chris Trotter writes about the "need to wrench out the neoliberal ivy", it is good to know what he specifically has in mind.

Interestingly, you only rarely actually hear actual Labour MPs explicitly denounce neoliberalism in public. It does happen from time to time, of course. When running for the leadership of the Labour Party in 2013, David Cunliffe slammed the "neoliberal consensus" which he called a "dodgy pyramid scheme". Since that disastrous time, however, it's been largely absent. I do not think, for example, that I have ever heard Andrew Little use the word in public.

Why is this, when the concept is the subject is an obsession of so many Leftwing commentators? Well, one reason might be that MPs are aware of just how unimpressed the public are by the use of ideological jargon. There is good reason why you never hear Bill English spout off against "cultural Marxism" in his public remarks and the same applies to neoliberalism.

For those who favour centrist politics, however, a more hopeful reason is that Labour still considers itself to be a potential party of government. Responsible parties with a reasonable hope of gaining power understand that their pronouncements have consequences. They are less likely to gamble away economic stability.

And when reviewing that list of economic principles, it is instructive to consider just how much cross-party support they have received over the years.

It is true that neither of the last two governments have been particular puritan disciples of the creed. One example of this is the spending binge that characterised the end of Helen Clark's government.

This National government has continued the questionable tradition of doling out generous subsidies to big Hollywood movie studios. While both governments sold some state assets (either wholly or partially) there is not much appetite for further privatisation.

But in the main, the essentials of New Zealand's new economy have enjoyed a bipartisan consensus.

Whether you call it "neoliberalism" or something else, it is a framework that has served us well. Here's hoping that this year's election renews our commitment to responsible economic management.