"Party vote for the party that wants what you want."
Oh,dear lord, the number of times in the late 90s and early 00s I've heard a person tell me they wanted good social services, free (to user) healthcare, free (to user) education, etc, only to tell me in the next breath that instead of voting for the Alliance (which was strong on those issues), they voted NZ First!
Someone point me to a brick wall so I can bang my head against it!!
Perhaps that's why NZers are so frustrated with politics: we want one thing, then vote for something else.
Has anyone ever gone to a supermarket wanting a can of peaches; inextricably buying a can of beans instead; opening it up at home and being disappointed it wasn't peaches? Yeah, me neither.
But that's how a good chunk of people seem to vote.
And then we don't allow 16 year olds to vote because... *ahem* ... they might not understand what they're doing.
So a close relative, who is on the general roll, party voted TPM in 2023 because they did not want to give their vote to Lab/Greens but would not vote for National. I was not thanked for pointing out they had thrown away their party vote which indirectly made NZF and Act stronger.
I emailed TOP asking about their health and safety policy when the awful Brooke bill was going through the House. I got a reply saying they would get back to me and it could take a while because all their policy team are volunteers. Still waiting. I agree Q is charismatic, but they have a very corporate top down structure - look up how their candidates are selected and policy decided. All in the hands of an unelected "Board". As you say, careful what you wish for, especially if you want to change the government.
I sent an email to Chris Hipkins about 3 months and got a automatic response but no answer to my question. I asked the same question of Chloe Swarbrick. An answer a week later. How useless is Hipkins that he can't even answer an email. One of the interesting thinks about the stucture of all our political parties is how subjective the word democracy becomes. If Labour members had been able to vote on the order of candidates as TOP members can, would the economist Craig Rennie been delegated to number 51?
What order of candidates? I've seen nothing that says there is such a thing in Opportunity. Aren't all candidates appointed by the Board? And Labour members do vote on the List order ; it starts at regional conferences across the motu then all lists go to a moderating committee made up of guess who? Members.
Hi Darien, I'm an Opportunity Party member, I just put in my votes for the party list order. I understand the members' vote isn't the only decider but we do get our say.
🤷With all due respect, MOST answers from politicians are handled by their staff (exception being in person media interviews of course) so Chris Hipkins was unlikely to even SEE your question? Not sure if Chloe does hers PERSONALLY or dictates to a staffer, but the Labour leader being the "official" opposition party does have a lot more calls on their time - just sayin'... Absolutely all mail should be answered - unrealistic to think it would be Chris Hipkins personally, unless it was his aunt or mother or Jacinda 😜
A shame that you've been ignored - I've emailed hipkins a number of times and have received a relevant and respectful reply each time - from his comms team, as I would have expected.
Running an advert for a political leader is more transparent ? I hope you are attempting to be funny. Why would a small anonymous "board" get to select the leader and how is this more transparent.
The Greens are the most open about choosing their leaders, as poor old James Shaw found out a couple of years back. IIRC the electorates elect delegates and give them their instructions, about as grassroots as it gets.
The board was elected. Yes well it gets tough to have a large team of volunteers to answer everyone's questions. Our health and safety policy isn't out yet but a part of it will be bringing medical appointments below 10 dollars.
Hmmmm. Last article you gave me grief in the comments section for saying I was considering TOP. Thanks for the even longer reply.🤣🤣. You make very good points. I’m not sick of the Greens, only NZFirst’s stranglehold. May be too dangerous to play the tactical game with the party vote. I’ll just stick only playing that game on the local candidate circus. Sometimes Labour is close up here in Whangarei.
I must admit that for me the so called tactical vote is party vote either Labour or Greens, whichever best fits personal values - definitely not splitting those potential votes to a third contender such as Opportunities. A strong vote for the two of them, no matter how the numbers fall, is the only way we shed this abhorrent and damaging coalition. Also agree that Opportunity needs much more thorough interrogation rather than the classic comment ' I quite like the look of opportunity policies and thinking of giving them a go this time' that I have heard more often than I'd like. Thank you Simon, appreciate your writing.
I agree. Even if I thought they were a better alternative than Green, (I don't) I wouldn't vote for a party that would just go with the winner of the most votes! That's not "centrist", it is having no real conviction or values.
The words Qiulea Wong has used, when responding to the relentless questioning of who Opportunity will go with, indicates that the party will speak first to the party with the largest votes. This should be the natural order of things in this democracy. However she has also indicated much closer to the election there will be clear statements on key policies as they all become clearer from all parties - bottom lines perhaps. At this stage just vote for the party whose style and policies appeal the most. The coalition negotiations this time will certainly be fascinating.
I should add that if something satisfactory or meaningful is not attained with the party with largest vote then there are a range of options with other parties, to stay on cross benches or join the opposition. Opportunity has its principles and values.
It’s not an either or scenario. Their policy is to negotiate ‘first’ with the party who gets the most votes. What happens after that depends on how that negotiation goes. They can negotiate with both National and Labour before deciding what to do. There’s also the potential for TOP to broker a grand coalition. No other third party offers such a wide range of possible outcomes.
I quite like the look of opportunities policies abd thinking if giving them a go this time.
Surely that better then the default 'it's how I've always voted'
I've never had any knowledge in how parties develop the policies or select candidates, more interested in what they say they stand for. Is that so wrong?
Hi Malcolm, in Whangarei Vote Gary Payinda he has a very good chance of getting in and I think will be terrific. Garywill also be great working with Ayesha and as a clinician will complement her epidemiology skills and expertise.
I have been thinking if TOP were serious about working with anyone Q should stand in Epsom where I think they might have the best chance of winning as there are many many centre rightists there who are absolutely appalled by bith David Seymour and Paul Goldsmith. I believe that Epsom also has a high Green party vote as well.
Vote for who you like, they are all self interested shits with no actual idea how any thing works or how to fix anything that is why they are in politics and do not have real jobs
Great analysis Simon …TOP votes as a spoiler for the possibility of real progressive change. A deal breaker for me: they have no foreign policy. I have asked directly myself - “we’re a minority party so - no” . On BHN last week Q was asked directly about TOP’s foreign policy positions - same answer - nothing to see here. Which means they haven’t thought about it - not good - or - even worse, they have, but don’t want to disclose what they stand for. But having said that - my barber oracle announced he’s voting TOP - utterly disillusioned with all the other parties - which underscores your point. If Labour continues to underwhelm- I think TOP will get up.
Opportunity party does not have a foreign policy so far because we are still in the process of releasing all of our policies and that takes up a lot of time for the committee. However our renewable energy policy is about making us less dependent on oil.
Sorry Owen that's a cop out ... TOP/ Opportunity has been contesting general elections since 2017 - takes a lot of time to come up with a cogent foreign policy ? A "centrist" stance looks more like fence sitting ?
I understand top has been around for some time and we have made a few statements like on the US/ isreali strikes on Iran and on gaza but we have being go through a reshuffle replacing old policies with new updated versions, so any statement on foreign policy would be included in fitting into what is happening currently and agree on by the current committee.
How are you going to handle being in government if you can't even get your policy platform organised when we've known there is an election this November for over a year. Is this naivety, poor processes/lack of trust of members by the "committee", or what.
I'm failing to see any evidence of grass roots involvement other than being cannon fodder ordered around by the hierarchy.
Surely the Gareth Morgan descriptor - you know the one (LOAP) doesn’t apply to today’s TOP - surely not …..the universe could not contain so much irony ? …. Or ….
Very informative thank you Simon. If you don't want the present government to continue I think a vote for TOP is a wasted vote. They will take votes from Labour and the Greens rather than any of the present coalition parties. They have said they will negotiate first with whichever party gets the most votes and having poached Labour and Green voters that would be National. TOP would be impotent in a coalition with NACTNZF and might not even be needed for the present lot to keep on with their anti-democratic quest. A vote for TOP is a vote for the present coalition.
Oppty are polling pretty much 5% now and Labour are the biggest polling party. And since Oppty's polling has increased from 1%, Labour's polling lead over National has increased.
Thanks Simon. TOP seems like a spoiler party. Sounds a bit like the Bob Jones party of the 80s. It took the vote of those who wanted "change - any change". It worked in 1984 to take 12% and split the vote to get Muldoon out in the FPP system. Splitting the vote doesn't quite work the same in MMP.
Absolutely spot on the money in this post. TOP is a party with a name that is a dead give away to their real intent. Just one more distraction in an electoral system that seems to reward grifters rather than grafters. A vote for TOP is a vote to divide the left bloc, plain and simple.
I’m a big fan of your columns SW and this one is very articulate and reasonable as usual, with the caveat of your disclosure as a Greens supporter.
The difficulty I have with your encouragement not to vote for Opportunity, for the reasons stated, is that it implicitly second guesses the outcome of the November election and presumes that Opportunity will not get sufficient seats in Parliament to make a real difference, or even that it might fail to cross the 5% threshold.
My contention is that if every one who liked something about Opportunities policies, people and intentions, and were undeterred by openly partisan columns like yours, and gave them their party vote, they may end up with 8-10-12% or more. And make a Real Difference for better, for us all.
Secondly, my understanding, is that the Party’s intention, when the election is decided, if they are in position to do so, is to talk first to the Party with the most seats. Implying that if this conversation is unsuccessful, they’ll talk to the next major Party.
But TOP will change nothing. A happy day scenario sees them getting over 5% with MPs elected. Even if they prop up Labour, nothing about Labour will change. We'll still have watered down neoliberal economics - yes, not as bad as Nact - but Labour are not committed to fixing the structural imbalances in the economy (wealth accumulation, market capture & distortions, climate and environment, workers right etc).
TOP's UBI is silly in this context because it just transfers around cash without changing who gets to control what it is spent on. Look at the distortions that is the accommodation supplement if you want evidence that additional income is captured by those with pricing power. Expect to see power companies and supermarkets getting their hands on that cash in short order.
An unhappy scenario sees them propping up Nact in a coaltion - or even just in confidence/supply - and the train wreck continues.
To get fundamental reform which involves a wealth tax - go and watch Gary Stevenson if you are not following - requires a strong Green vote to provide a back bone to Labour. Otherwise we are screwed.
"Party vote for the party that wants what you want."
Oh,dear lord, the number of times in the late 90s and early 00s I've heard a person tell me they wanted good social services, free (to user) healthcare, free (to user) education, etc, only to tell me in the next breath that instead of voting for the Alliance (which was strong on those issues), they voted NZ First!
Someone point me to a brick wall so I can bang my head against it!!
Perhaps that's why NZers are so frustrated with politics: we want one thing, then vote for something else.
Has anyone ever gone to a supermarket wanting a can of peaches; inextricably buying a can of beans instead; opening it up at home and being disappointed it wasn't peaches? Yeah, me neither.
But that's how a good chunk of people seem to vote.
And then we don't allow 16 year olds to vote because... *ahem* ... they might not understand what they're doing.
Best comment Frank! Spot on Mate 🙏🙏🙏🙌🙌🙌
So a close relative, who is on the general roll, party voted TPM in 2023 because they did not want to give their vote to Lab/Greens but would not vote for National. I was not thanked for pointing out they had thrown away their party vote which indirectly made NZF and Act stronger.
100%
I emailed TOP asking about their health and safety policy when the awful Brooke bill was going through the House. I got a reply saying they would get back to me and it could take a while because all their policy team are volunteers. Still waiting. I agree Q is charismatic, but they have a very corporate top down structure - look up how their candidates are selected and policy decided. All in the hands of an unelected "Board". As you say, careful what you wish for, especially if you want to change the government.
More than that, Darien, folks should look up TOPs constitution HOW they formulate policy. It's an eye-opener:
>>>Policy Committee mandate
12.1 The Policy Committee has sole responsibility for developing the Party’s policies. The
board, other officers, and members of the Party are expressly prohibited from
interfering with the development of policy by the Policy Committee.<<<
"Members of the Party are expressly prohibited" from policy formation,deriding it as "interfering".
Worse still, TOP doesn't tell us who the policy committee are. It literally could be anyone.
This opaqueness is troubling to put it mildly.
But apparently they are volunteers. They better get used to answering questions. There will be many.
I sent an email to Chris Hipkins about 3 months and got a automatic response but no answer to my question. I asked the same question of Chloe Swarbrick. An answer a week later. How useless is Hipkins that he can't even answer an email. One of the interesting thinks about the stucture of all our political parties is how subjective the word democracy becomes. If Labour members had been able to vote on the order of candidates as TOP members can, would the economist Craig Rennie been delegated to number 51?
What order of candidates? I've seen nothing that says there is such a thing in Opportunity. Aren't all candidates appointed by the Board? And Labour members do vote on the List order ; it starts at regional conferences across the motu then all lists go to a moderating committee made up of guess who? Members.
Hi Darien, I'm an Opportunity Party member, I just put in my votes for the party list order. I understand the members' vote isn't the only decider but we do get our say.
Thank you for clarifying.
🤷With all due respect, MOST answers from politicians are handled by their staff (exception being in person media interviews of course) so Chris Hipkins was unlikely to even SEE your question? Not sure if Chloe does hers PERSONALLY or dictates to a staffer, but the Labour leader being the "official" opposition party does have a lot more calls on their time - just sayin'... Absolutely all mail should be answered - unrealistic to think it would be Chris Hipkins personally, unless it was his aunt or mother or Jacinda 😜
A shame that you've been ignored - I've emailed hipkins a number of times and have received a relevant and respectful reply each time - from his comms team, as I would have expected.
So, how are candidates chosen for other parties?
I would say running a job ad for a political leader is far more transparent than what other parties do.
All policies are also available on their website. Easy to find. I won;t post here tho as I do not know the rules around posting links.
Candidates for the Green Party are first of all chosen by their branch and list-ranked by the whole party.
Likewise, Green policy is developed by members in accordance with the Green Charter. Any member may be involved in the process.
Similar for Labour.
Candidates for Labour go through an extensive process of selection. By the members.
Go on - show us their health and safety policy.
Yes it's a pretty website. Ask a question however......
Running an advert for a political leader is more transparent ? I hope you are attempting to be funny. Why would a small anonymous "board" get to select the leader and how is this more transparent.
The Greens are the most open about choosing their leaders, as poor old James Shaw found out a couple of years back. IIRC the electorates elect delegates and give them their instructions, about as grassroots as it gets.
Yep and Labour's pretty brutally transparent as well. Believe me, I lived through two leadership contests as an MP!
The board was elected. Yes well it gets tough to have a large team of volunteers to answer everyone's questions. Our health and safety policy isn't out yet but a part of it will be bringing medical appointments below 10 dollars.
Thats not health and safety. I'm talking about workers' rights, which dont exist in any Opportunity policy.
Hmm the reply from TOP talks about the cost of medical appointments, but that's not safety.
Yep ; I have emailed a whole lot more questions about worker's rights. Someone told me on FB I was being self entitled!!!
Hmmmm. Last article you gave me grief in the comments section for saying I was considering TOP. Thanks for the even longer reply.🤣🤣. You make very good points. I’m not sick of the Greens, only NZFirst’s stranglehold. May be too dangerous to play the tactical game with the party vote. I’ll just stick only playing that game on the local candidate circus. Sometimes Labour is close up here in Whangarei.
I must admit that for me the so called tactical vote is party vote either Labour or Greens, whichever best fits personal values - definitely not splitting those potential votes to a third contender such as Opportunities. A strong vote for the two of them, no matter how the numbers fall, is the only way we shed this abhorrent and damaging coalition. Also agree that Opportunity needs much more thorough interrogation rather than the classic comment ' I quite like the look of opportunity policies and thinking of giving them a go this time' that I have heard more often than I'd like. Thank you Simon, appreciate your writing.
I agree. Even if I thought they were a better alternative than Green, (I don't) I wouldn't vote for a party that would just go with the winner of the most votes! That's not "centrist", it is having no real conviction or values.
The words Qiulea Wong has used, when responding to the relentless questioning of who Opportunity will go with, indicates that the party will speak first to the party with the largest votes. This should be the natural order of things in this democracy. However she has also indicated much closer to the election there will be clear statements on key policies as they all become clearer from all parties - bottom lines perhaps. At this stage just vote for the party whose style and policies appeal the most. The coalition negotiations this time will certainly be fascinating.
I'm a volunteer for them so I'll say that we will step away if we don't like the agreement.
How quaint ? Or just completely naive ? This is not a game.
I should add that if something satisfactory or meaningful is not attained with the party with largest vote then there are a range of options with other parties, to stay on cross benches or join the opposition. Opportunity has its principles and values.
It’s not an either or scenario. Their policy is to negotiate ‘first’ with the party who gets the most votes. What happens after that depends on how that negotiation goes. They can negotiate with both National and Labour before deciding what to do. There’s also the potential for TOP to broker a grand coalition. No other third party offers such a wide range of possible outcomes.
Agree - cant reconcile its desire for change with its desire to stop the swinging electoral pendulum effect - change and stability together?
I quite like the look of opportunities policies abd thinking if giving them a go this time.
Surely that better then the default 'it's how I've always voted'
I've never had any knowledge in how parties develop the policies or select candidates, more interested in what they say they stand for. Is that so wrong?
They say they stand for forming a government with whatever party has the most votes. Why would you vote for such self serving behaviour.
Hi Malcolm, in Whangarei Vote Gary Payinda he has a very good chance of getting in and I think will be terrific. Garywill also be great working with Ayesha and as a clinician will complement her epidemiology skills and expertise.
As always excellent and lucid writing.
I have been thinking if TOP were serious about working with anyone Q should stand in Epsom where I think they might have the best chance of winning as there are many many centre rightists there who are absolutely appalled by bith David Seymour and Paul Goldsmith. I believe that Epsom also has a high Green party vote as well.
Vote for who you like, they are all self interested shits with no actual idea how any thing works or how to fix anything that is why they are in politics and do not have real jobs
You nailed me as a voter and my intentions. Thanks for this very informative piece.
Thank you Simon for your well-thought through opinions. Your writing is appreciated.
Great analysis Simon …TOP votes as a spoiler for the possibility of real progressive change. A deal breaker for me: they have no foreign policy. I have asked directly myself - “we’re a minority party so - no” . On BHN last week Q was asked directly about TOP’s foreign policy positions - same answer - nothing to see here. Which means they haven’t thought about it - not good - or - even worse, they have, but don’t want to disclose what they stand for. But having said that - my barber oracle announced he’s voting TOP - utterly disillusioned with all the other parties - which underscores your point. If Labour continues to underwhelm- I think TOP will get up.
Opportunity party does not have a foreign policy so far because we are still in the process of releasing all of our policies and that takes up a lot of time for the committee. However our renewable energy policy is about making us less dependent on oil.
Sorry Owen that's a cop out ... TOP/ Opportunity has been contesting general elections since 2017 - takes a lot of time to come up with a cogent foreign policy ? A "centrist" stance looks more like fence sitting ?
I understand top has been around for some time and we have made a few statements like on the US/ isreali strikes on Iran and on gaza but we have being go through a reshuffle replacing old policies with new updated versions, so any statement on foreign policy would be included in fitting into what is happening currently and agree on by the current committee.
How are you going to handle being in government if you can't even get your policy platform organised when we've known there is an election this November for over a year. Is this naivety, poor processes/lack of trust of members by the "committee", or what.
I'm failing to see any evidence of grass roots involvement other than being cannon fodder ordered around by the hierarchy.
Surely the Gareth Morgan descriptor - you know the one (LOAP) doesn’t apply to today’s TOP - surely not …..the universe could not contain so much irony ? …. Or ….
How come your constitution says members are expressly forbidden to interfere with policy or words similar to that?
One thing you omitted to mention Simon was that TOP could choose to sit on the cross benches.
And that is what they should do
I really valued your telling voters that the best way to vote, is to vote with your Party vote, for the party that you want in government.
I agree. It's very reassuring, given that's the way I've always voted.
Very informative thank you Simon. If you don't want the present government to continue I think a vote for TOP is a wasted vote. They will take votes from Labour and the Greens rather than any of the present coalition parties. They have said they will negotiate first with whichever party gets the most votes and having poached Labour and Green voters that would be National. TOP would be impotent in a coalition with NACTNZF and might not even be needed for the present lot to keep on with their anti-democratic quest. A vote for TOP is a vote for the present coalition.
Oppty are polling pretty much 5% now and Labour are the biggest polling party. And since Oppty's polling has increased from 1%, Labour's polling lead over National has increased.
Thanks Simon. TOP seems like a spoiler party. Sounds a bit like the Bob Jones party of the 80s. It took the vote of those who wanted "change - any change". It worked in 1984 to take 12% and split the vote to get Muldoon out in the FPP system. Splitting the vote doesn't quite work the same in MMP.
An Opportunity vote is a vote against the left as well as a vote for a party with a very silly name.
This article seems to be a vote for the status quo. A pro-labour writer attempting to undermine what TOP is.
And what, exactly, is TOP, in your view?
Top commentary 💚
Absolutely spot on the money in this post. TOP is a party with a name that is a dead give away to their real intent. Just one more distraction in an electoral system that seems to reward grifters rather than grafters. A vote for TOP is a vote to divide the left bloc, plain and simple.
Exactly! Thr Opportunity party is really an opportunistic party, designed by soft belly liberals to split the left.
Thanks, you nailed it.
TOP's policies say they want something radically different. But their centrist rhetoric says they are happy with the status quo.
I’m a big fan of your columns SW and this one is very articulate and reasonable as usual, with the caveat of your disclosure as a Greens supporter.
The difficulty I have with your encouragement not to vote for Opportunity, for the reasons stated, is that it implicitly second guesses the outcome of the November election and presumes that Opportunity will not get sufficient seats in Parliament to make a real difference, or even that it might fail to cross the 5% threshold.
My contention is that if every one who liked something about Opportunities policies, people and intentions, and were undeterred by openly partisan columns like yours, and gave them their party vote, they may end up with 8-10-12% or more. And make a Real Difference for better, for us all.
Secondly, my understanding, is that the Party’s intention, when the election is decided, if they are in position to do so, is to talk first to the Party with the most seats. Implying that if this conversation is unsuccessful, they’ll talk to the next major Party.
But TOP will change nothing. A happy day scenario sees them getting over 5% with MPs elected. Even if they prop up Labour, nothing about Labour will change. We'll still have watered down neoliberal economics - yes, not as bad as Nact - but Labour are not committed to fixing the structural imbalances in the economy (wealth accumulation, market capture & distortions, climate and environment, workers right etc).
TOP's UBI is silly in this context because it just transfers around cash without changing who gets to control what it is spent on. Look at the distortions that is the accommodation supplement if you want evidence that additional income is captured by those with pricing power. Expect to see power companies and supermarkets getting their hands on that cash in short order.
An unhappy scenario sees them propping up Nact in a coaltion - or even just in confidence/supply - and the train wreck continues.
To get fundamental reform which involves a wealth tax - go and watch Gary Stevenson if you are not following - requires a strong Green vote to provide a back bone to Labour. Otherwise we are screwed.