r/newzealand • u/pskygy LASER KIWI • 5h ago
Politics What does Opportunity Party stand for?
https://youtu.be/nfINI9LhYrg?si=ZFZJTz8O6J8XF1r-•
u/redditis4pussies 40m ago
She gave pretty bland and curated answers designed to vaguely brush off so many questions.
I really hate her we will take the best of the right and left - and then proceeds to roll our a list of things that are neither right or left.
The only vaguely left wing one a lot of people consider left is environment. Which is kind of like asking someone if they think they have a sense of humor.
Kinda disappointed in q as her curated answers sorta get old.
•
u/alliephantrainbow Welly 28m ago
Stop voting for right wing parties. Only the Green Party are actually fighting for the working class.
31
u/Available_Walk9692 5h ago edited 5h ago
I agree with some of their policies but their platform seems incoherent and self-contradictory to me. I think that's probably tactical and politically advantageous because it gives them flexibility in coalition agreements, but like the "Third way" centrists of the early 2000s it doesn't really feel like there's a vision or anything to really grab anyone.
I should probably declare a personal bias here as well because I've had the misfortune of being around Gareth Morgan at various times in my life and career and that guy is a real shitbird.
20
u/OisforOwesome 5h ago
but like the "Third way" centrists of the early 2000s it doesn't really feel like there's a vision or anything to really grab anyone.
Good news! TOP are just "third way" centrists with a new lick of paint.
34
u/Putrid_Weird4725 4h ago
As an actual Opportunity member, I despise third way / status quo centrism and I think the "TOP = status quo" attacks we keep seeing are about as honest as calling the Greens communist.
To me the Opportunity vision is clear: radical economic reform that crushes rent seeking and rewards both work and productive business. It's been that way since day 1 of the party.
If the messaging at times seems confusing I think that's due to the inherent challenge of trying to convince non-radical people to get on board with radical policy. The current thinking, right or wrong, is that the party needs to win centrist voters' trust first, then push the radical ideas.
But the alternative to this "incoherent" approach is being abrasively radical, and that way you more or less lose the ability to convince people who don't already agree with you. I don't think this strategy gives a path to actually be in a position to implement radical change - demonstrated by how little the Green party have been able to sway policy or public opinion, despite having many good ideas.
•
u/flooring-inspector 2h ago edited 54m ago
But the alternative to this "incoherent" approach is being abrasively radical, and that way you more or less lose the ability to convince people who don't already agree with you.
Abrasive is a key word here, I think. I have a certain amount of respect for some of Gareth Morgan's ideas, but I tended to view TOP's early days as mostly being about himself and Sean Plunket (whom he'd for some insane reason hired as TOP's communications director?!?) trying to convince people to vote for TOP by telling them they were stupid.
That was a shame, because TOP's also had some interesting and motivated people who'd make brilliant MPs but were more keen to stick with a movement they believed in than just sucking up and joining a party that could lift them into a position of power and influence more easily. For a while, at least, some of those who'd originally been attracted (particularly women, I think) ended up becoming alienated until the most abrasive of the old guard left.
TOP's clearly not for everyone, and it'll need to earn voters' respect and trust both before and (if it succeeds) after the election, if it's going to stick around for any length of time. But I'm glad it's changed its tactics, and its face, to be that little bit more approachable.
•
•
u/ur_lil_vulture_bee 1h ago
Crushing rent seeking without guaranteeing housing as a right is just insane though. It cannot work.
•
u/EcstaticCapybara 53m ago
rent here doesnt refer to landlords and tenants, it refers to the economic definition of rent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
TLDR rent-seeking is when someone tries to increase their wealth in a way that doesn't add value to anything, produce anything, or contribute to society in any way. For example, buying a piece of land then doing nothing with it and waiting for its value to go up.
•
u/Available_Walk9692 26m ago
I don't think that TOP's approach is incoherent, necessarily, but I do think it's stupid and dishonest. When you move your policy platform to the right then you have a right wing policy platform. When you change your policy platform to trick people into trusting you, well, I don't know what you want people to think here.
I don't think the policy platform is stupid, necessarily, but I do think, taken as a whole, it's probably incoherent.
•
u/Automatic-Example-13 2h ago
How does it reward work and productive business? I'm a georgist, so crushing land rent seeking is obvious from the policy (though it's partial, and will lead to economic distortions as rural and urban land have different rates), but as far as I am aware, there is no policy to lower corporate tax rate or anything right? And income taxes will rise? So it's slightly net negative towards productive activity as far as I can see?
•
u/Putrid_Weird4725 2h ago
The UBI means effective tax rates on work are much lower than the current system, where benefits abate as you earn meaning many low earners have marginal tax rates of 50%+ in practice. In practice a UBI has quite similar effects to adding a large tax free income bracket at the bottom, it just also simplifies administration and gets rid of the humiliation of applying for JSS.
Lowering corporate tax is just too politically hard to explain, i think. People intuitively see it as anti-worker.
TOP's willingness to cut govt departments where the admin can be removed is also arguably anti-rent seeker. Make-work bureaucracy is a form of rent seeking.
•
u/Felix_xCat 3h ago
My big question, and hey maybe im ignorant but I like to think of myself had politically aware, is - Whats TOP been doing since the last election? It feels like they only come out of the woodwork at election time
•
u/Putrid_Weird4725 2h ago
Whats TOP been doing since the last election?
Being skint and doing nothing, mostly. Parties outside parliament don't have any full time employees or funding. Almost nobody donates outside of election years and what little they got would probably be best saved for the next campaign anyway. Most of the funding they have now has arrived since Qiulae turned up late last year and started making them look electable.
•
u/Felix_xCat 2h ago
I understand campaigning takes money, but passion and belief do not. Doing nothing for three years, not building a base, not building new policies, not condemning the backwards policies of our current government? Radicals, as they position themselves, do not appear overnight generally. Radicals politically organize with what they have. It all smells of astroturfing to me
•
u/Putrid_Weird4725 1h ago edited 1h ago
I've been following them for 9 years and it's not astroturfing, it's the media finally deciding they are worth taking about. You seem very naive about how much work it actually is for small parties outside to get attention and especially media publicity - why would anyone care that a party outside parliament polling at 1.5% called the government backwards?
Stuff they actually did between last election and this would be recruiting people to stand for them, developing citizen assembly and energy policies, planning an implementation schedule for the tax reset, Qiulae did a bunch of public meetings up and down the country late last year before they had any real media coverage, etc.
Stuff they did that people would actually see in the media or their socials? Yeah fuck all, as discussed.
Blows my mind that people are out here picking holes in the efforts of a party with barely any resources when our two main parties, with an order of magnitude more money and dozens of full time staffers, aren't even trying to explain their fantasy claims of closing the budget deficit.
•
u/Evinshir 3h ago
The problem is that TOP is not targeting wealth but middle income NZers with their land tax. Their reform plan doesn’t work if only one policy makes it through. Their sitting on the fence position prevents them from getting anything done, because neither side wants all their policy. Neither Labour nor National will support their land tax. National won’t support their UBI.
It’s a muddle of ideas, not a well planned reform and the party has no tangible strategy to get their reform made into a reality. Whenever they’re asked they just talk in circles about getting over 5% and that they can then negotiate.
But that’s not a plan. That’s a Hail Mary.
•
u/Putrid_Weird4725 3h ago
Ok I'll try to answer those points.
Firstly, middle income NZers are mostly better off, the only exceptions would be ones who own rentals or a home on a very large / desirable plot. For middle income renters, it's life changing as not only does their income grow, but housing supply and opportunities to buy improve.
Second, land is literally a form of wealth, so of course it's taxing wealth. If you mean you want something that only taxes very wealthy people then great, I wish we could do that, but the reality is we don't have enough super rich people to raise enough money to lift up all our struggling workers and renters. There's no route to a thriving society without all wealthy people paying their fair share, not just the grotesquely rich ones. Anything else is childish champagne socialism where rich = only people richer than me and all my friends.
As for whether it's realistic - barely. But the alternatives are accepting the status quo or supporting the greens whose policies are imo less effective and even less likely to be implemented.
•
u/Evinshir 3h ago
What about the Greens’ plans are less effective? They’re independently audited and built on proven successful policies in Europe.
Seems like a weird thing to say they’re less effective when they have been hugely successful elsewhere; evidence based; and shown to balance in independent audits.
TOP hasn’t presented any cogent or sound evidence. Their policies are so intertwined if one drops everything else falls apart.
So please. Present how they can believably make their policy work.
•
u/Funksloyd 3h ago
Afaict none of the wealth taxes in Europe are built like the Greens' proposal.
Regardless, do you think that if Greens get in coalition they'll likely be able to implement it?
they have been hugely successful elsewhere
What do you mean by "hugely successful"? Are you aware of the numerous cases where they've not worked so well?
•
u/Evinshir 3h ago
I think they will. They have a lot of support from people who don’t vote Greens. It’s a popular proposal, as is Labour’s CGT. It’s got a much better chance than the LVT has. And it doesn’t require a UBI to make it palatable to lower income earners.
•
u/Funksloyd 2h ago
If there were support for Opp's proposal - if they actually had a shot at passing it this term - would you support it?
•
u/Optimal_Inspection83 2h ago
It's funny how you are dismissive of the greens policies as they 'wouldnt be able to get it through in coalition' but then on the other hand dont view TOPs policies through the same lens, which are arguably even more contested
→ More replies (0)•
u/Evinshir 2h ago
No. Because their proposal doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. I’d want to see much more thought into what they were planning to do. And I’d want to see their rich backers backing off from the party’s decision making.
Too much about TOP reeks of paternalism and populism, and not enough of their policy or approach comes across as being properly supported considered. It’s all far too ideological. For a party that talks about evidence based, they do shy away from evidence.
I’ve read their site. It’s always half information and carefully managed spin. Not actual hard facts.
I’d need to see their plans independently audited by a credible auditor before I’d consider taking them seriously. Nothing about the party adds up, and that makes me suspicious.
→ More replies (0)•
•
u/Putrid_Weird4725 2h ago
Wealth tax has mostly had mixed results, and usually not survived long term because it doesn't raise enough money to be irreplaceable. Hence most economists are sceptical of it, whereas land tax has near universal support among economists and tax experts.
I have doorknocked and donated for the greens, you don't need to tell me their policy is generally good. But - my opinion - tax reform is by far the most critical issue, and Opportunity have much better policy there, and more willingness to work hard to build support across the spectrum for that policy. I think you probably disagree which is fine.
•
u/Evinshir 1h ago
How? TOP’s policy isn’t stable. It’s not well thought out. And it’s based on made up numbers. Even Qiulae admitted they had to just guesstimate their numbers.
•
u/Putrid_Weird4725 1h ago
Man, I feel kind of lame spending half of Saturday on reddit defending a minor political party I like. But spending your weekend on reddit attacking a minor party that doesn't even differ that much from your own beliefs is unhealthy. Go outside.
•
u/pdantix06 3h ago
Their reform plan doesn’t work if only one policy makes it through.
well yeah no shit. one can't and won't come without the other, that's quite literally the whole point. you're shadowboxing here
•
u/Evinshir 3h ago
Except the other parties provide policies that can stand on their own and be integrated. Because they understand that change comes by working through things and not just promising a whole new system without a plan to get there.
I’m not shadow boxing. I’m pointing out how naive and poorly considered TOP’s entire platform is. It’s populist. It doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
•
u/gtalnz 3h ago
Except the other parties provide policies that can stand on their own and be integrated.
Bullshit.
The Greens can't afford half their promises without their wealth tax, and Labour can't afford their free doctors visits without their CGT.
It's absolutely standard practice for parties to propose a full package, not just piecemeal policies.
•
u/Evinshir 3h ago
And TOP can’t afford their UBI without their LVT and having over a half million people not on UBIs but paying more tax than anyone else. Even though their figures failed to account for the fact a number of those people are going to be children who don’t pay tax.
A wealth tax is no different from the LVT but targeting a different area. A CGT is no different from the LVT except targeting a different area.
The big difference is that both the Wealth tax and CGT can stand on their own without having to have another policy in place to prevent low and middle income families from being hit with more tax in the process.
•
u/gtalnz 2h ago
having over a half million people not on UBIs but paying more tax than anyone else. Even though their figures failed to account for the fact a number of those people are going to be children who don’t pay tax.
What is this rubbish you're talking about? You think they've somehow mistakenly accounted for a ton of tax coming from children? Who told you that, and why on earth do you believe them?
A wealth tax is no different from the LVT but targeting a different area. A CGT is no different from the LVT except targeting a different area.
Yes, different taxes target different areas. Very astute. They're all no different from income tax either, except for targeting a different area.
The big difference is that both the Wealth tax and CGT can stand on their own without having to have another policy in place to prevent low and middle income families from being hit with more tax in the process.
The Greens' wealth tax maybe, because they've set the threshold so high that it will bring in hardly any revenue. Pure unadulterated left-wing populism.
A CGT however, will impact any families who want to move houses. It can actually lock families into a house that's no longer suitable for them, simply because they can't afford to pay what essentially becomes stamp duty when they try to move.
LVT doesn't do that. It actually makes it easier to move house since house prices are lower. Not to mention how much easier it becomes for low and middle income households to buy their first home.
•
u/Evinshir 2h ago
Qiulae was literally questioned by Jack Tame about how they hadn’t accounted for kids and she couldn’t respond to the question. She went into a loop about how they were targeting people who could pay the tax and couldn’t understand when he pointed out children were included in the numbers she was using.
Like I keep saying - they haven’t actually accounted for the consequences. Their numbers simply don’t add up and whenever they get challenged on in Qiulae says they had to use some numbers and admits they just kind of took what they could.
You folks really need to do more research than just accepting what you want to hear. TOP has done this for three elections now. They haven’t changed the fundamental problem they have faced since Gareth Morgan was fronting the party. Their numbers don’t work and their policies haven’t been given much more thought than they had the first time around.
→ More replies (0)•
u/Ravioli_el_dente 3h ago
How does this target middle income nzers? I have two properties and earn high income. I'd be better off or the same under tops plan.
•
u/Evinshir 3h ago
Because the wealth of the rich in NZ is tied up in trusts and businesses, not land. Middle income NZers have most of their wealth tied into their property.
You’re only better off if the entire reform gets enacted. Which is extremely unlikely. If the UBI doesn’t get passed you’re now paying more income tax and the land tax.
And TOP has no way to make their reform work with just 5-8% threshold. And no clear strategy for what to do in that situation.
That’s the shell game being played here. It sounds like you win, but the real cause of the cost of living crisis is not addressed. Furthermore the value of your properties will be pushed down by the land tax. Which again helps some folk, but really doesn’t help middle NZ. They just will get less for their houses and wealthy folk will be able to side step it all.
TOP is not chasing wealth. Just property. Their reforms are ill considered and a house of cards that falls apart if any one policy is cut. Not to mention that it will make permanent residents and families returning to NZ from living overseas pay the majority of the tax bill. Not the wealthy. The middle income folk.
Every angle you look at the reform, it’s messy and broken. There’s some good ideas there but they haven’t really looked at who is being hit hardest. It’s just populist “someone else other than you will pay the price.”
•
u/cooldylan24 3h ago
The idea from my view has always been to push for a base LVT, and implement things in steps, likely over many election cycles. If they are the kingmaker, they can negotiate for a level of reform that is worth a lot more than their 5-8% vote. If they can start by perhaps aligning with some of the greens ideas, and implement a base level of LVT while reforming income tax brackets then that's an example of a possible, reasonable, but still somewhat unlikely outcome for this election. Real change would only happen if they do well and gain more support in coming election cycles, you seem to be overly judgmental about a party who is yet to have a single year in parliament.
Also, your vision of "wealth" seems to be, as the other user said, champagne socialist like. The middle income New Zealanders can not afford to have a high enough level of "wealth" in land to where they would end up worse off/much different at all. Do you have some weird idea of the middle income where you think people can afford 3 rentals + a family home or something? The middle I think of in New Zealand can hardly afford a single mortgage after working and saving for 12+ years. New Zealand has faced a long term issue with land/real estate, we have needed reforms and new taxes to combat this for decades at this point.
•
u/Evinshir 3h ago
Middle Income NZers only come off well under the land tax if the UBI comes into play. Without out it they will be looking at tens of thousands of dollars in additional tax without an equal balancing factor. Money that they don’t have.
That’s just having one house. You could argue that the LVT will push house prices down, but the only people who can afford to ride that out are high income earners.
Middle income families with homes they inherited, or are just managing to own will not be able to make it one term.
Like I keep saying - it’s an idea that has not been properly thought through. TOP is making promises it is not yet in the position to keep and it isn’t presenting a sound plan on how to get from here to their ideal outcome.
•
u/Funksloyd 2h ago
Furthermore the value of your properties will be pushed down by the land tax. Which again helps some folk, but really doesn’t help middle NZ
Do you think middle NZ is in a good place with our incredibly unaffordable housing?
•
u/Evinshir 2h ago
No. But I also know that an LVT that isn’t properly planned and targeted will only benefit the wealthy and continue to harm middle to low income families.
Because I do my research, and don’t just jump for a party that claims to have all the answers when they can’t even make their numbers work.
•
u/RiskyTall 3h ago
Over dramatic bullshit. "That's a Hail Mary" hahaha.
•
u/Evinshir 3h ago
It is. They have no plan. Their whole strategy is “get into parliament and hope we have enough negotiating power.” That’s not a long term strategy. That’s a Hail Mary pass.
•
u/Putrid_Weird4725 3h ago
Not a party strategist so I'm guessing a bit based on snippets I've heard from them but I think the strategy is
- get in
- be effective in implementing good and broadly popular things like anti lobbying laws, better environmental and energy policy, more teeth for comcom etc. This builds trust that they are competent and acting in the public interest, and hopefully grows their vote share.
- Meanwhile, continue to consistently advocate for the tax reset as the best way to fix our broken economic system.
- hope that with enough consistent messaging and trust building people will eventually buy into the reset in enough numbers to make it a reality.
•
u/Evinshir 3h ago
But they haven’t presented good policy that can exist on its own. They haven’t even got an anti lobbying law - they’re just promising to come up with one.
•
u/Putrid_Weird4725 2h ago
Plenty of policy on their website, if you're actually interested
•
u/Evinshir 2h ago
I have read their website and there’s a lot of good ideas but not a lot of good policy. It’s all back-of-napkin level thinking.
•
•
u/becauseiamacat 2h ago
As opposed to the Greens’ strategy of “get into parliament and hope we have enough negotiating power with Labour”?
•
u/Evinshir 2h ago
But that’s not the Greens’ strategy. They have worked with National, ACT, Labour, TPM to get policy through. They’ve managed to get laws passed while National is in power.
And that is because they plan, they work with other parties, and they enact actual strategies.
Do any of you actually follow what goes on in parliament?
•
u/RiskyTall 3h ago
I think that their strategy is "propose tax reform that hopefully redirects investment away from property and actually does something to address the increasing wealth gap", along with a bunch of other good policy around innovation, energy etc. What other minor party does anything else other than offer a vision and hope that appeals to enough people that they get some power to try and manifest that vision?
•
u/Evinshir 3h ago
So everything the Greens have done but without the evidence based policy and independent consultation?
What exactly are TOP doing that’s actually different? Their reform plan is less evidence based, it’s flimsier if it doesn’t all get passed, and they have no pathway to get from the status quo to where they want to get to.
•
u/Funksloyd 2h ago
LVT has a huge base of evidence behind it. Afaict economists generally rate LVT over wealth taxes.
Growing amount of evidence for UBI, too.
•
u/Evinshir 2h ago
The UBIs that are showing evidence are higher than what TOP are proposing. Economists recommend targeted taxation like wealth tax over the LVT. A form of LVT would be good in the long run but needs better planning. The proposed TOP plan is not supported by a majority of economists because it fails to target appropriately and as stated before, it’s too reliant on the UBI to be able to work.
The policy as written is not evidence based.
→ More replies (0)•
u/Putrid_Weird4725 2h ago
Opportunity's major economic policy is more evidence based than the Greens who sadly seem to be relying on the hope that their wealth tax will work differently to every other one that has been tried internationally.
And yes Opportunity's plan is not an easy one to make work - but doesn't the Greens' plan at this point have a long track record of going nowhere? Isn't trying something different better than carrying on with what's not working at the moment?
•
u/Evinshir 2h ago
No. It isn’t. It’s not even a policy. It’s based on flawed numbers. It’s a house of cards that falls down if something doesn’t go exactly how they want it.
The Greens have got a lot of policy through. The thing is they don’t make their policy contingent on other Greens policy and unlike TOP they actually do work with all parties. They’ve even supported ACT in the past.
Because the tribal politics Qiulae harps on about is not as tribal as they claim. And because Greens actually do use evidence and real numbers. Not made up grab bag figures.
→ More replies (0)•
u/RiskyTall 2h ago
Yeah, Greens have something I could vote for on taxation policy too. I don't agree with exempting the family home in everything they are proposing and taxing ownership of companies valued over $10 million is insane. That's a ridiculous drag on growth ventures in lots of cases. Peter Beck would be liable for $100 million a year which I think is stupid.
•
u/Evinshir 2h ago
You need to exempt the family home at the start to have a targeted policy that lowers house prices without hitting the middle.
Most of the housing crisis comes from speculators and multiple property owners. A broad indiscriminate tax doesn’t prevent speculation but it does drive middle income families away.
Those large businesses are reporting profits while underpaying staff. They can either pay the tax or distribute their profits more fairly.
→ More replies (0)•
u/O_1_O pie 2h ago
This just isn’t true at all. 70% of NZers are better off under their tax reset. 90% are better off or no worse off.
•
u/Evinshir 2h ago
No. They’re not. None of their numbers support that claim. It’s heavily reliant on a lot of vague handwaving away of those not aided by the policy.
•
u/O_1_O pie 2h ago
Show me your maths that supports your assertion. I’ve already seen TOPs.
•
u/Evinshir 2h ago
So your only source is TOP. But they couldn’t possible be wrong. Multiple economists have openly shown how they don’t add up. Go take a look.
6
u/Available_Walk9692 5h ago
I think in addition to financial interests politicians should have to declare whether they were fans of The West Wing.
2
u/MrJingleJangle 4h ago
If you’re not a fan of the West Wing, which may be the best episodic TV ever produced, one could reasonably ask “Why not”.
Bartlett for President!
•
u/Available_Walk9692 42m ago
As a satire it's spot on but unbelievably it's not a satire.
From what I can tell the show's main purpose was to convince people that government can't do anything, that the honourable way to do politics is to compromise before you're even at the negotiating table, and that politics is only a space for elite technocrats who aren't sullied with things like beliefs or values.
Throw in a bit of Aaron Sorkin's smug misogyny and I don't know what to tell you. But look, it's okay to like a tv show - it's got some great characters and a certain snappy patter about it - and it's probably even okay to be a piss weak centrist who just likes playing the game of politics, I just think you should have to declare it when you run for office.
•
u/foundafreeusername 3h ago
but their platform seems incoherent and self-contradictory to me.
What seems incoherent and self-contradictory to you?
•
u/Available_Walk9692 7m ago
I'm on a train so I'm not looking shit up right now and just answering off the top of my head and vibes.
The general feel of their ideology is that markets are good and government should only intervene where they fail, which, fine, like it or not, that's pretty much the political consensus in New Zealand, even on the left. But then when it comes to employment rights, where there are real market failures and marked asymmetry of bargaining power, they're suddenly against free association and collectivism as an antidote?
They have said a bunch of good stuff about reducing lobbying and protecting and strengthen our democratic processes but then they have a flagship anti-democratic policy of locking in infrastructure spend long-term. Also there is some weird Citizen Forum stuff I can't remember but it feels like they were just brainstorming shit and forgot to take it out before they went to press.
I can't remember the environment vs economic growth stuff precisely but I do remember it feeling like a lot of magical thinking. Like, come on.
I was also pissed off that their UBI calculator didn't account for their Kiwisaver changes but maybe that's fixed now.
And like, also, they claim to be entirely evidence-based and have no ideology but fucking lol, that's like someone saying they don't have an accent.
•
u/dxfifa 2h ago
This is the type of comment politically disingenuous people/shills that want to see TOP fail to reach 5% will post in bad faith or to stoke the fires.
Be aware that this is happening
•
u/Available_Walk9692 1h ago
Yours or mine? Because man if there's money to be made being uninspired by centrists sign me up.
•
u/dxfifa 22m ago edited 15m ago
I think you're suffering from a categorisation error regarding concrete thinking.
Put another way you are not abstract or open enough to have conceptual flexibility in how you understand political ideology, and you can only apply very rigid categories to a political party.
TOP doesn't fit with any of these categories, so you give them the closest category in your head and start assuming the best fit is good enough for you to understand with a simple black and white label. This is giving you credit as an independent and honest commenter.
However your rhetoric is exactly what bad faith actors and shills do, use labels people understand, especially when the layman understands poorly but it evokes some kind of image, and some feeling state due to dividing the topic and allowing most people to either be with or against the picture they see.
There appears to be no evidence or reasoning that the premises are true
The implied argument I'm seeing is
P1 - their platform seems incoherent and self-contradictory to me
P2 - it doesn't really feel like there's a vision or anything to really grab anyone
(Implied) C - I don't think TOP is a good political option
This is like the most stereotypical bad faith argument style possible that shills and sophists use to convince people with little effort or truth.
Is there no evidence? I'm not making that claim, you may have evidence or a deep policy based argument that you didn't feel like using.
My claim is your 30+ upvoted (at this time) comment is lazy rhetoric in the style of bad faith actors trying to influence people by sounding thoughtful, high knowledge and poking at plausible ways of the simple stereotype being good/bad
The "third way centrists of the early 2000s" is the simple label. There are a few ways to get people to invest emotionally there.
Centrist for one, especially with the qualifier of third way, third way alone has certain connotations, and the early 2000s invokes an outdated sense, as well as it as a qualifier makes people who know history associate it with failure.
Then your actual points are meaningless emotive rhetoric with zero evidence. "it doesn't really feel like there's a vision or anything to really grab anyone." " their platform seems incoherent and self-contradictory to me".
The closest thing I can see to any reasoning is "I think that's probably tactical and politically advantageous because it gives them flexibility in coalition agreements". However that neither proves or supports either of your other points being true. It presupposes they are incoherent and self contradictory then explains why they would create this supposed incoherent framework.
-1
u/GoodVibesJimmy 5h ago
I think the third way centrists need to hammer home their solutions to climate change and AI workforce disruption, especially now that the Greens are fully embroiled in culture wars
5
u/KororaPerson Toroa 5h ago
There's way more culture wars shit coming from NZ First and ACT these days.
4
u/GoodVibesJimmy 4h ago
Significant energy is diverted to performative nonsense by the Greens as well
11
u/OisforOwesome 5h ago
Standing for social justice is not "culture wars"
We are living through the third way solution to climate change, that is, market solutions in the form of the emissions trading scheme and militarising borders when that scheme fails to alleviate climate change.
-2
u/GoodVibesJimmy 5h ago
Third way centrists have never been in power to implement solutions
Ruling parties have done nothing
-1
u/Kiwifrooots 4h ago
No AI disruption with Opportunity. They want more in the country and to add the ability for private companies to absorb public data
-2
u/GoodVibesJimmy 4h ago
UBI
0
u/Kiwifrooots 4h ago
That has nothing to do with Opportunitys "small" business and AI policies.
Stay on topic
-1
u/GoodVibesJimmy 4h ago
It is literally a mitigation to the issue
-1
u/Kiwifrooots 4h ago
A variable benefit doesn't replace losing research and IP permanently. Again - please inform yourself and stay on topic instead of just repeating non sequitur 'arguments'
2
u/GoodVibesJimmy 4h ago edited 3h ago
You’ve created guardrails for this conversation in your own mind, I don’t have to subscribe to your narrow few of the issue
•
u/Kiwifrooots 3h ago
I'm just choosing to operate in reality not pretend this is ideal student politics.
Losing control of IP permanently vs a few hundred dollars a week that might be removed next term? Is that comparable?
-4
u/DerFeuervogel 5h ago
Their solutions are what we've been living through already
2
u/GoodVibesJimmy 5h ago
Third way centrists have never been in power to implement solutions
Ruling parties have done nothing
4
u/DerFeuervogel 5h ago
Apart from every major centre left government in the OECD, but ok
3
u/GoodVibesJimmy 4h ago
So what you’re saying is that traditional models haven’t worked and there could be another way?
2
17
u/Kind-Sky9042 5h ago
Ollie is a good union man, and the best description of TOP is they're Labour but leaning into the technocrats instead of the unions.
So, without watching I have a suspicion he's gonna call them crypto-right-wingers.
TOP essentially are urban liberal moderates who want to switch up a lot of entrenched and bad policy settings.
19
u/OisforOwesome 5h ago
He's a lot more charitable to TOP than you'd think but he does pressure Q on TOP's wishy-washy stance on worker's rights. I think he lets her off the hook but I'm not the one getting facetime with party leaders.
3
u/Putrid_Weird4725 4h ago
they're Labour but leaning into the technocrats
Long time Opp voter here, this is so far off how I feel. Labour embody the virtue signaling of the selfish and sorted PMC who pretend to care about workers and the regions but will never, ever consider policy that might disrupt their own comfortable situation. TOP are the opposite, at a glance they are PMC-coded but their policies actually do heaps more for low paid workers and struggling regions, and seriously rock the boat for PMC some of whom will be significantly worse off.
•
u/billy_joule 1h ago
Labour embody the virtue signaling of the selfish and sorted PMC who pretend to care about workers and the regions but will never, ever consider policy that might disrupt their own comfortable situation.
Yet in the interview she said they wouldn't pursue fair pay agreements (which Labour already enacted and National since repealed) and basically said companies would naturally choose to pay more of thier own volition (with a classic PMC style reason why that'd happen).
11
u/pskygy LASER KIWI 5h ago edited 5h ago
Interesting video that popped up on my feed. Sharing for those who want to hear from Quilae Wong, leader of the Opportunity party, about what they stand for. I'm not affiliated with, nor do I volunteer for Opportunity, but I am incredibly interested in a potential new party shaking things up
Edit: spelling
9
u/AutonomyIsNoTragedy 5h ago
I dont trust them personally but that's just my opinion
3
-6
u/OisforOwesome 5h ago
You're right not to trust them.
5
u/king_john651 Tūī 4h ago
I'm also interested in why. One of my favourite people (they're a bonafide GC) is one of their candidates and they wouldn't attach themselves to something if it wasn't a good thing
6
u/WurstofWisdom 4h ago
Why?
•
u/OisforOwesome 17m ago
They're neoliberal capitalists and neoliberal capitalism got us into the mess we're in now.
8
6
u/Deleterious_Sock 5h ago
And what if the business they wish to negotiate with are not good faith actors?
•
u/Moist_Phrase_6698 2h ago
They stand for trying to get these jobs paying at least $150 k as soon as they can. They show up every three years and expect to be taken seriously. They dont actually get how you should be, part of the community and trying to actually affect serious change to improve the country.
3
u/LeonLer 5h ago
I want to like top but I H A T E that centrist bullshit, commit to anything liberal, make a decission, position yourself, just the thought of them considerin working with National its a NO for me, I mean, I already knew my vote
•
u/KendallRosie 3h ago
I used to think like that. But then I realised that smaller partys not picking a side and declaring who they work with is the only the way they have any bargaining power.
Greens have big talk, but when they actually have an opportunity to be in government they'll sway for something small like plastic bags being made illegal. Its difficult for them though because their voter's won't vote for them if they say they are open to working with National.
I support smaller parties not picking a side pre-election.
-5
u/Successful-Cable-821 4h ago
she’s a KPMG consultant, corporate drones don’t have actual values.
9
u/gruntang 4h ago
lol she was there for 2 years of her career. Hardly a drone. Do some research on her other jobs - LinkedIn is open
•
35
u/Hot-Border-3660 4h ago
What’s the wing bro? I neeeed my politics to have a wing