In Aust pumped hydro has risen approx 18 x and the concept isnt fully built yet, just imagine what will happen in N Z with the usual out of control building practises !!!
Printable View
TOP's plan is to win Ilam - and take whatever party votes they get with them into parliament. While I still think they have an uphill battle to face, its in my view not hopeless. Raf Manji used to be Lianne Dalziels financial hand in the Christchurch City Council, and he is well known in the area.
https://www.top.org.nz/raf-manji
I think Brownlee was a problem in Ilam last time around, for the electorate vote to go to Labour. Ilam is usually about as safe a National seat as you can get. Labour currently hold the seat and will be desperate to retain it, and I foresee that National voters will vote for the new National candidate who has no baggage.
I just can’t see where Manji’s votes will come from in the above scenario, I can really only see him coming a distant third….unless left wing voters abandon Pallett en masse for Manji, in which case he may come second.
... which is a forcast not more or less worth than any opinion from any professional analyst (which we know, are always wrong); Remember, how many people predicted 6 weeks prior to the 2017 elections that Cindy will make it?
But independent from the value of any forecast with an agenda .... this says absolutely nothing about which party has the best program. And lets face it, always just going for the party we think creates the lesser damage is not really uplifting, isn't it?
Given that National and Labour did work over the last 3 decades or so hand in hand to run the country down (no matter whether we talk health services. education, public safety, infrastructure or even defence) would I wish somebody with fresh ideas all the luck they can get.
We can't just continue with National underfunding essential services (like education and health) when its their turn and Labour (when its their turn, like the last 6 years) just throwing money at them instead of fixing them, because they have no clue how to run projects.
National tried for decades to starve the essential services we have, and Labour did not know how to cure them when it was their turn.
Somehow it feels we need to change the approach.
Early days for my journey of discovery, but so far I like what I've seen from TOP:
https://www.top.org.nz/policy
Their main problem might be that they don't rattle the cage strong enough. Lets help them, shall we ;) ?
... and they do have a health policy which even makes sense :) :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHzseyYs3cI
Only NZ party I heard of looking into the causes for deteriorating public health.
Exactly. People have very short memories, and while I fully agree that Labour has let us down, they did not create the current situation all by themselves. National contributed to it during their stints in government, and are also responsible for the mess we now find ourselves in.
They have my attention.Quote:
Somehow it feels we need to change the approach.
Early days for my journey of discovery, but so far I like what I've seen from TOP:
https://www.top.org.nz/policy
Their main problem might be that they don't rattle the cage strong enough. Let's help them, shall we ;) ?
... and actually - they are not a one trick pony. I think their housing policy makes a lot of sense:
https://www.top.org.nz/affordable-housing
I know, taxes are always unwelcome, but its hard to build a future if you don't invest.
What they propose is to put a (low) tax on the land value of urban properties (and reduce the income tax instead - i.e. for most people it will end up tax neutral or even positive). The outcome would be a better use of land, because several units on a certain piece of land would attract less tax per unit.
On top of that they want to enable councils to allow more land development by returning some of the collected taxes to them and at the same time require them to have a sufficient landbank to keep housing affordble.
Better use of the limited resources we have ...
I realise that, but you know what? Maybe it doesn't matter. I think there is a lot of truth in Black Peter's post and comments. We can't keep on doing the same thing we have always been doing. Maybe we need to start thinking outside the square. Maybe we need to move away from this thought process that we can't vote for a party unless they stand a chance of getting at least 5%. Maybe we should go ahead and vote for them - and if we all did that - maybe they would get over the threshold.
Well I don't think you have anything to lose in voting for them. At the end of the day you will have followed your convictions, and will have done what you think best. I know there are quite a few TOP fans out there, my son told me he was thinking of voting for TOP. At the end of the day, TOP will not get over 5% and we are not going to all wake up and decide to vote for TOP so that they get over the threshold. TOP is polling at about 1% with only a week to go until voting starts, it is nothing more than a simple statement of fact to say that they will not make 5% and above. But good luck to TOP and to all TOP supporters & voters.
Look - that's what they used to say about the Green Party as well. Sure - it took them some time, but look where they are now - and on the way they did help already the other parties to develop green policies.
Sure - TOP may or may not get this time into parliament (but I think they have a real chance with Raf Manji in Ilam).
Important is for them and their ideas to get more public exposure ... and even if just the other parties steal some of their ideas, this would be of benefit, wouldn't it?
Personally I am getting sick of tactical voting - and just check, what the tactical voting did last time for the farmers.
I think its time to vote for whoever one thinks is best for the country ... and to be honest, while I am closer to National as to Labour - none of these parties did a lot of good if you measure them at their outcomes: A once outstanding health system is now in tatters, a once top of the OECD education system delivers now ways below average results, and both National (by underfunding it) as well as Labour (by politicising them and not understanding how to fix them) destroyed them together.
And ACT? Well, what their austerity policies would do to an already strained public service, look no further than the UK.
Which of these parties would you suggest we should vote for to give our education and health system the coup de grace? I personally prefer to vote instead for a party with ideas to improve the system instead of tactically voting for the pundit who might do the smaller aditional damage.
The public service is 'strained' only in the sense that Labour has loaded it up with bureaucrats and communications staff and middle managers while we are still short of thousands of doctors and nurses. If thumb twiddlers have been hired to make-work positions then, I'm sorry, they have to go. Call that 'austerity' if you like but we won't become a prosperous nation by loading up on public servants.
'I think they have a real chance with Raf Manji in Ilam'
-----
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politi...EB3J5LBO5NMYY/
You are missing the point Black Peter is making. For things to change, we need to think and do things differently. As he said, it took time for the Greens (and ACT for that matter) to gain supporters and eventually secure a place of influence in NZ politics. If all the greenies had just thrown in the towel on the premise that voting for the Greens was a wasted vote - the party would not be where it is now. That line of thinking has the potential to ensure NZ never gets anything different or better. It is time to stop with the boring strategic “vote for the party that will do the least damage” mantra. As I have repeatedly said, it does not sit well with me personally and I am feeling less and less inclined to compromise my own philosophies and values purely to vote a party out. It is nothing more than “settling” - and it achieves nothing over the long term. We just rinse and repeat ad infinitum. You may be happy to support that frustrating cycle of ineffective government, but I am not.
Black Peter’s posts today, have been thought provoking for me, so thanks BP.
'we need to think and do things differently.'
-------
Who is 'we'? I think for myself and so do all the people who voted in the poll. 'We' don't need to go for TOP or try a new party. And I don't think it's awesome that the Greens and Te Pati Maori are in Parliament, I think it is terrible that these radicals are in a position where they can drag New Zealand into being even more of a socialistic and divided hell-hole than it has become over 6 years of Labour.
I didn't say anyone should vote for TOP - that was not the point I was making. My comments about NZ as a whole (and NZ politics) needing to do things differently, applies to any minor party now or in the future, that is thinking outside the square and coming at it, from a fresh, and different perspective.
Do you honestly think that this perpetual back and forth between National and Labour, and their respective coalitions, is still working for NZ????
Really?
So TOP will run the country & provide all the answers? Good luck with that. How are they going to go ‘from 0 to 100’ so to speak? The example of the Greens was provided earlier….they are over the threshold consistently but aren’t one of the major players, and can only be relevant if they go into coalition. It will be the same for TOP.
I prefer to live in reality.
I don't think any right thinking person thinks it's working. So what is the solution ? First of all, 3 years terms are stupid. They should be minimum 4 years and more likely 5 years. That way a Government can actually get on with implementing their policies immediately after elections and hope they start making a difference before the next election. 3 years is pathetic. 1st year new Government is learning, 2nd year they try to implement the easy stuff, 3rd year they start making undeliverable election promises.
Second, I think our MMP is a complete failure and ensures we stay at the bottom of the heap like we are and have been for some time.
Third. I think the last 3 years have taught us that it is dangerous to vote in a majority Government without restrictions, when they can just ignore all their election promises and implement stuff they have never mentioned before the election. Switzerland with their voting on issues system, at least give some direct democracy and maybe that is something we need to look at to avoid a repeat of the last 3 years of an anti-Democracy Government.
This Top outfit must have a big advertising budget.
They are everywhere, including on the bottom right hand side of the Share Trader pages!
I agree with you that Labour hired a lot of quite useless policy analysts and communication staff. They didn't even help Labour to stay in power (well, here is hoping). I was talking about the health sector - and they are absolutely at breaking point, look into any emergency department or even GP practise around the country, and I was talking about education going down the drain. If you want to see other services at breaking point - start to count the potholes on our roads :) ;
Admittedly - with education it is more a politcial issue. National underfunded them big time (and I used to sit during that time in a board of trustees - I know what I am saying) and Labour threw money at teachers to make their union buddies happy and added a lot of additinal tasks which don't improve our childrens education - but they didn't do anything to make the teaching job easier. None of them did help to improve our education standards - actually, Laobur further reduced them.
So, yes, we agree that Labour did over the last year a lot of wasteful and useless spending, but so did National before (read the "billion dollar bonfire" I was referring to). Does not mean that we can now afford to just underfund education, health and other frontline services (as ACT seems to plan) and expect things will get better. We do have thanks to Labour and National a pretty run down public system, and we need to invest into our future if we want to have a future worthwhile looking forward to.
Just a couple of observations:
Germany is running MMP since something like 1948 (actually - NZ adapted it from them), and despite some dawbacks I think that MMP did help them quite well to avoid the politcial catastrophies the US (with the wannebe dictator Trump) or the UK (with the clown and liar Boris Johnson) had in recent times. MMP clearly did help Germany to stay politically on the top of the heap, so - what is wrong with us?
I agree that a 3 years term is short time, note however that all countries with longer election periods (I am aware of) have some "interim elections" (like another house, regional elections or senate / house) which help the party in power to see whether the people like what they do. No issue with me to extend the NZ term to 4 years, but I think in that case we would need as well some political interim elections (which we currently don't have - local government does not count - no split along party lines).
Ah yes - and referring to your last point - NZ clearly needs a constitution limiting the currently unchecked powers of parliament ... and a second house might help as well to balance this power as well as allow a longer election term (see above).
In Germany under MMP, the people vote and then the negotiations start. Nobody is ruled in or out prior to the election.
In New Zealand under MMP, prior to the election the media hound the political parties to declare who they will and will not work with.
I blame the Greens a lot for the sad state of affairs with our MMP not working as it should. Instead of being a far left socialist party, we need a centrist environmental party that can go either Left or Right in coalitions and get real results for the environment.
Sadly the NZ voting public doesn't demand it.
Not quite true.
Just looked on businessdesk through this years poll results (sorry, paywalled) - and TOP came out in a number of recent polls with 2, 3 or even 4%. Add to that the margin of error of 3% (and sure, this can go the other ways as well) - so, yes, they are the underdog ... but it is well possible they make it.
Not sure as well whats the point of this negativity. Changing things is always hard, but should we really keep sticking in this messy cycle of always just picking the smaller evil instead of looking for a good solution? Procrastination vs progress?
And for whatever it is worth - NZ is currently in a phase of both big parties moving towards its extremes (sort of in sync with the rest of the world). Nothing good can come out of that, given that real progress can only happen with a support of the majority of people (and the majority is not extreme). So - we do need a liberal party back in parliament to keep both National and Labour honest and bring them back to the discussion table to find and agree on solutions for our future.
Remember: Only solutions drafted and carried by a majority of the people will survive the next election. Neither Labour / Green / Maori nor National / ACT / Winston First will be able to shape our future in a sustained and sustainable way. So - you need either a center right majority or a center left majority. We need again a party in our parliament representing the Center!
Ah yes - and we need to invest into our future, not strangle it applying some ill perceived austerity policy (and I would see no other way to fund ACT's and Nationals tax promises, unless they want to pop up debts).
That's (in general) correct. Exception is the AfD (maybe best described as a mixture between a German NZF and some NeoNazi groups) - the democratic parties don't want to work with them and say that beforehand.
But yes, I agree - MMP makes a lot more sense if every party competes based on their program and if they try after the elections to form a coalition with whoever allows them to implement more of their program.
The NZ version, where (many) smaller parties seem to understand themselves only as fanclub for either National (ACT) or Labour (Green, Te Pati) instead of trying to implement their own program with whoever they can, makes less sense.
However - there is no rule in the NZ electoral system which requires parties to commit prior to the elections with whom they will go. The problem is not the MMP system, the problem is that many NZ politicians (and journalists) seem to wear blinkers and only seem to be able to think in camps. Everything else is too complicated, you see? The result is that parties are not pushing to best implement their own program, but they just prioritize supporting one of the big parties.
Neither ACT nor Green (nor Te Pati, I think) are really independent parties. ACT is a right wing appendix to National and the so called GREEN Party (bad name, they should call themselves LEFT) is just a left-wing appendix to Labour.
So, yes - practically NZ got so far mainly stuck with a FPP system. Vote Labour or National and yes, make them a bit more or less extreme by voting either the big party or the more extreme appendix. But again, this is neither the problem nor the fault of MMP - It is just something which seems to be stuck in the minds of too many politicians. Maybe they can't think further than Left or Right?
Time for a real liberal (not liberitarian!) party in the Center! Ever considered voting for TOP :) ?
Absolutely - I think the problem is that at some stage the NZ communist party merged with the NZ Greens - and basically consumed them.
What the NZ Greens do is not Green politics, it is just very Left-wing politics sprinkled with a bit of Green. They are basically competing under the wrong banner.
In other countries (e.g. Germany) is the Green Party able to form coalitions with both Centre Left as well as with Centre Right Parties - and pushing their Green agenda this way very successfully. In some German states did the Greens even managed to take the leading position in coalitions (including taking the head of state role) - sometimes with the left and sometimes with the right.
Good environmentally conscious people instead of ideological one-sided idiots like they are in NZ.
I appreciate your strenuous appeals on behalf of TOP, but whether they represent ‘good solutions’ and / or ‘progress’ is a matter for debate. At the end of the day they are just another bunch of politicians. Manji is a blow-in from the UK who has been on the Christchurch City Council. He is a career politician.
My son has gone through their policies and told me he was looking closely at voting for them. He did remark that they seem to be intensely focussed on Christchurch, and indeed you can see that on their website -
‘The Christchurch Plan
——————————
We will invest in New Zealand’s second biggest city to ensure Christchurch is a vibrant and sustainable city for generations to come.’
This is obvious pork-barrelling IMO. Manji has a big profile in Christchurch and is trying to win the Christchurch electorate of Ilam.
So it is perfectly acceptable for National (in particular) to focus on Auckland, but when another party recognises that the South Island has been short changed for years, that is just "pork barrelling?"
Have you been to Christchurch lately? Have you seen the inner city area with multiple abandoned earthquake damaged buildings, streets that still have container protection walls in place, and areas that appear to have simply been forgotten?
Not sure I can follow. Given that Manji stands for a Christchurch electorate (Ilam), he might be forgiven that his focus is as well on Christchurch, isn't it?
TOP has other candidates in other parts of the country as well (just check their website: https://www.top.org.nz/candidates ), and I expect these as well to focus not just on TOP policies, but as well on their respective electorates. Wouldn't you?
That would be what any directly elected MP would need to do.
No, I don’t expect the main party website to detail a list of financial hand-outs to be dished out per electorate. I think the country wins as a whole when central government delivers suites of policies targeted at all New Zealanders, and not just in electorates that certain MP’s are trying to win.
Also from the ‘TOP’ website -
‘The Christchurch Plan
——————————
The Opportunities Party (TOP) is proposing a $1 billion investment package for Christchurch to address some of the critical challenges still facing us, and to deliver a vibrant and sustainable city for generations to come.
TOP leader and Ilam candidate Raf Manji spent six years as the Christchurch City Council’s “money man” and believes a suite of investments are needed to complete the rebuild program and deliver key services residents can be proud of.
These investments focus on healthcare, transport, policing, heritage and education. TOP also has policy proposals for how we manage water services and urban planning.’
More on TOP’s intense focus on Christchurch below. Interesting that the party literature refers to it as ‘our city’. I guess it is if you live there, not so much if you live in Whangarei or New Plymouth.
—————
‘What TOP proposes
We have a vision for a world-class Christchurch and Raf Manji wants to help deliver it.
Our investment proposals include:
A new South Island Cancer Center and Laboratory ($580m)
A new Mental Health and Trauma Center ($20m)
Shift to a Zero Emission Urban Bus Fleet by 2030 ($130m)
Roading and Footpath Repair Fund ($70m)
Hospital Car Parking ($30m)
150 new Community Constables ($45m)
10 new Police Kiosks ($5m)
A new South Island Police Training College ($40m)
Christchurch Cathedral and Arts Centre Repair Fund ($40m)
A new Primary/Secondary School ($40m)
The Christchurch Pitch is all about making sure our city gets the attention - and investment - it needs and deserves.’
You just don't get it do you. It's not about TOP - it is the way you respond to people's posts, and immediately poo hoo anything they might raise about a party other than the one you support. I am currently still an "undecided" - we will see what the next two weeks bring. But Black Peter has raised some very good points in his last few posts, and I agree with him. It is time to do things differently, and find some decent alternatives to the status quo of politics in this country. This constant compromising and settling for a party that doesn't fully meet one's needs, purely to force a change in government, isn't working, and makes a bit of a mockery of the whole system. We should be voting for a party we like. Not just not-voting for one we don't.
I’m not ‘poo hooing’ anything, I’ve provided more actual information about ‘TOP’ than has been conveyed in weeks. I’m someone who actually does the research & debunks the myths. You can state all you like that there is definitely no pork barrelling going on & you can keep your rose-tinted glasses on if you like, I have no issue with it. Fair enough that you’d quite like to vote for something ‘newish’.
Yeah, no doubt about that. Although Manji is the party leader & he is the one proposing to shower $1 Billion of taxpayer funds on his home patch. I wonder if ‘TOP’ got over the threshold whether ‘The Christchurch Plan’ would be their bottom line in any coalition negotiations?
OK - lets talk regional funding from parties.
I remember NZ First pulling billions into their regional (koha) development fund - mainly spent for their clientel - and not a lot of that of any use for the greater NZ public. Do you remember that as well?
I don't know how much Labour wasted for absolutely pointless projects (cycle bridge, light rail, ...) in Auckland, but it must by now reach already several hundred millions - and absolutely nothing to show for it but empty pockets.
Nationals pledge card contains the roads of significance. I'd encourage you to add up how much of that would be for Auckland. A second motorway I heard. Easy more than a billion I'd say - how is this right?
OK - not sure about ACT, but I reccon since David is looking after the superrich in Auckland, they probably told him that they have already everything they need in their rich enclave and only want to pay less taxes to avoid others getting a similar flash environment. So - Davids gift to the country is austerity for everybody but the superrich ... ah yes, and semi automatic guns for whoever wants them. Just what the doctor prescribed. Really?
So - what again is wrong with TOP proposing a plan to fix Christchurch? The wounds of the Earthquake are still wide open - building fences in too many places (just to prevent people from falling into the ditches, no work done), rough car parks where once buildings used to stand and one of the two cathedrals fixed maybe in 2030 and the other gone). BTW - it was National responsible for running this pathetic repair job. 12 years down the track and still so much damage unrepaired. Do they care? Of course not.
But hey, thanks for reminding us. I guess just thinking back at Nationals failure after the Christchurch earthquakes should take more votes from National and their right wing appendix ACT. Good idea.
Just facts - and you brought that up. TOP seems to be the only party not just caring for the Superrich (like ACT) or for Aucklands motorways (like National), but they care as well for NZ's second largst city: Christchurch. Good on them, they do see where the real need is.
All good. Just one thing - it is not Manji's key policy, but it is one out of eight key policies ... and as far as I see are the other seven policies applicable for the whole country.
Are we blaming him next for TOP's policy to invest more into New Zealand's youth? Not good for the elderlies, is it?
A terrific outcome for TOP would be Manji winning the electorate and getting a seat in parliament, then National/Act only needing one extra seat to govern, anointing TOP on confidence and supply, giving NZ First the bird. Shades of Peter Dunne.
Lol, I'd buy popcorn and a beer to see that happen. :t_up:
National will win Ilam
They are miles ahead. Why would the electorate wake up one morning and say 'I think we'll all vote TOP!'
Obviously the TOP fans are keen, but why should anyone else buy in?
Plus nobody knows who Raf Manji would go with, he may annoint Labour. Too much of an unknown really.
Now I am confused. You complained only yesterday that its a problem of the NZ MMP system that parties form camps already prior to the election, and today you complain that Manji didn't join in?
I do hope he would go with whoever he is able to better implement TOPS's program ...
What I said is that in Germany they operate MMP differently, and I pointed out what they do differently.
Centre-right voters will not vote for TOP if they think there is a chance Manji will go into a coalition with Labour. I don't think there is anything illogical or controversial in saying that.
I'll reiterate my points again:
1/ Manji is a career politician from the UK. He is based in Christchurch and has been a Christchurch City Councillor.
2/ One of TOP's key policy planks is 'The Christchurch Plan', a plan to inject $1 Billion of taxpayer funds into Christchurch city.
3/ 'The Ilam electorate in Christchurch is swinging back towards National, according the results of the latest Taxpayers' Union - Curia poll.
The latest poll found that 33 percent of respondents would be likely to vote for National candidate Hamish Campbell, while 15 percent favoured Labour's incumbent Sarah Pallett. Pallett came in just ahead of The Opportunities Party (TOP) leader Raf Manji, who 14 percent of respondents chose.'
4/ The latest national political poll from Newshub-Reid Research (25/09/2023) found that TOP has approx 1.9% support.
5/ A recent OneNews poll found that 80% of respondents want to know prior to the election who parties will & won't work worth.
These are the facts. They may be unpalatable to TOP supporters but I cannot help that.
You sound desperate ... actually so desperate that you start mixing facts with fiction - and some of your facts are absolutely irrelevant.
What is the relevance that Manji is from the UK? All of us (either we or our forebears) come from somewhere else - so, why are you repeating that ad nauseam. Are you a xenophobe? Do you hate Brits?
Personally - while the British have as well their fair share of idiots, so has any other people. So - again, what is your point?
And yes, he has been a Christchurch City councilor. Which means he has experience in political roles. Why is this a negative? Or do you mean you only support politicians who served in your local rabbit hole (wherever this might be)?
You are repeating like a broken disc that he is a career politician. Wrong. He started his career as a banker and had serveal roles internationally as investment banker ... btw - did you hold that against John Key as well (having been an investment banker), or is this just because you are afraid TOP might make it?
Not too interested in your local polls. Polls (particularly local polls) are a snapshot of a very small sample with a huge error of margin. If that's what counts, why do we have elections anyway? Just have a poll and go on with governing, shall we?
Look, it is fine with me if you prefer to vote for one of the parties which brought us down into the mess we are. That's democracy, and good luck with that. It is fine as well if you disagree with some of TOP's proposed policies - this is democracy as well. However - your desperate clutching for straws to find something negative about TOP starts to become a bit tiresome, particularly if you bring up issues which are neither relevant nor new - and some are not even true.
I'm not 'clutching for straws', I'm presenting a number of facts. If Manji wanted to continue his career as a lawyer he would have done so. The fact that he is taking on political roles indicates he sees himself as a politician. So there is nothing special or unique about Manji in that respect, he is 'another politician'. He didn't found the TOP party, and I have no doubt that if he wasn't able to make headway with entering the TOP hierachy then he would have lobbed up at some other NZ political party. As a Councillor, Manji was a close ally of the left-wing mayor Lianne Daziel, and this is just one more thing that will not endear him to centre-right voters. The Ilam poll numbers are no surprise when you really think about it.
I don't give a hoot who you vote for. I am not seeking to influence you in the slightest. The election won't be decided by one person's vote. I'm collated together some points, and others can determine if they are valid or not. You've chosen to respond angrily.
You can dismiss the polls if you like, but this close to an election I think on the night these numbers will play out pretty close to where they are now. That will be disappointing for TOP fans but such is life, there is very little point in burying ones head in the sand and pretending that Manji will romp home in Ilam and TOP will get over the threshold in the party vote.
If TOP 'made it' it would certainly be an interesting development, but not something I'm 'afraid of'. They seem to appeal to younger voters so would probably be taking votes off Labour and the Greens. That's not a bad thing in my book. I have no axe to grind with 'TOP', I just don't look at them through rose-tinted glasses & I'm 85% sure they won't be going into Parliament this election. Maybe one day their time will come.
I don't think anyone who supports TOP, realistically expects them to be in Parliament this year. But maybe now is the time to stand up and make a statement, if nothing else. My vote is worth nothing right now. National doesn't need it, and I'm not interested in giving it to Labour, ACT, or the Greens. But I might just decide to give it to TOP. The more votes they get this time round, the more attention is drawn to the party. People start noticing when a minor party starts picking up votes. The more votes a party gets, the more the media pricks up their ears too. TOP is probably unlikely to gain a seat this election, but they have to start somewhere. I am extremely disillusioned with the political landscape in this country, and I have zero confidence that anything of any real significance will change or improve, over the next three years. My vote may be a "wasted" vote in your opinion, but at least it won't be a vote for a party that doesn't meet my needs or expectations, or a party that doesn't match my personal values.
The problem is that I don't think this country could handle another Labour/Greens/Te Pati government in power. Even if you don't like National or Act, surely you could make the argument that it is the lesser of the two evils and help ensure Labour/Greens/Te Pati don't get into power by giving National or Act your vote.
Just a thought.
I don't believe for one minute that Labour/Greens/Te Pati, will be our government. National and ACT (and possibly Winston) are going to win the election.
Having said that, while I respect your suggestion, it is precisely what is pissing me off this time round. I don't want to vote for a party that is "the lesser of two evils." I want to vote for a party who has philosophies, values, and policies I align with. A party that makes me feel positive about NZ's (and my own) future. A party that thinks outside the square, and understands that we can't just keep doing what we have always done, because it is not working!
I agree that National and Act probably going to get in, but I don't think that its necessarily a given. Just to prove a point you could make an easy 15-20% return by betting on National winning. But thats obviously not a free lunch - betting markets are pricing in a fair probability National not being sworn in.
It may piss you off but that's just the nature of democracy, it is never going to be the most efficient way of doing things but it is a hell of alot better than other systems of forming government.
Not really.
While I agree that the proposed left-wing coalition sounds chaotic, so would the likely right-wing coalition (National / ACT / NZF). Do we really need taxcuts and austerity policies given a strained health and a broken education system? How much good will this do for our future? We need investments into things which matter to us - like health, education and into our youth.
Our problem is that New Zealand has currently no real political centre ... some liberals in Labour (and quite weak) and some liberals in National (but National purged many of the good ones after Muller). I would see TOP currently as the best candidate to create a new political home for liberal politicians.
And sure, they still will need time to grow and mature, but you only grow with experience - so, that's what they need.
The current swapping between political extremes which results just in the destruction of our common wealth (one side by underfunding it and the other side by incompetence) is poison for our political future. We currently just rock the boat stronger with every election - and a National Party without liberals with the need to please ACT's austerity policies and the need to supply Winstons baubles wont be much better for the country than another Labour coalition. Sorry.
Whatever it is chaos left or chaos right - people will not like it and in three years (or perhaps earlier) NZ will rock the boat again come election time. Left to Right and Right to Left. Stronger and stronger.
We need to plan beyond the next election and the next swap of extreme governments. We need to create a basis for a more stable political future for NZ, and for that we need a stable liberal party.
... and yes, despite the consistent negativity from one of the posters here ... I do see a good chance for TOP to make it already this election into parliament. Won't change all problems at once, but it would be a start.
A different perspective is now ‘negativity’. Goodness me, if TOPs own policies & the poll results that have been released represent ‘negativity’ then you have a very skewed perspective. If you have any poll results to hand that contradict anything I have said, please post them. That is how a debate is supposed to work, you are supposed to present rebuttal evidence to back up your viewpoint. Calling others ‘afraid’ or ‘negative’ is a form of ad hominem attack. You can’t win a debate that way.
That's the way I see it. I try and use my vote as best I can against the party I consider will do the most harm. Of the parties on offer, there isn't one I agree with on every point; and surely most voters are in that very same position. In fact there are even candidates standing who don't agree with every single one of their party's policies. That's politics - 'the art of compromise'.
Sorry buddy, but no I won't. No more than I feel any guilt whatsoever, for voting Labour at the last election. We all make our decisions at election time, based on whatever our personal reasons for doing so are. None of us ever have any guarantees that the party we vote for, will keep their promises, achieve their goals, or let us down over time. You will no doubt vote for National, but you have zero ability to predict the future, and how they will perform if they become government. Maybe we will experience more crises over the next three years? I hope not, but we live with a high known risk of another major earthquake, and our changing climate patterns means more storms, floods etc, are pretty much a given. If National/ACT are dealt a crappy hand in terms of emergency situations, those events will have a major impact on their ability to keep their promises and achieve their goals. Just as they have with Labour. No, I am not saying Labour is not to blame for some of their failings - of course they are - but they were dealt a crappy hand in that respect, and I don't think anyone with half a brain can deny that.
I don't have to justify my decisions to you, and you don't have to justify yours to me. Balance is constantly trying to throw a guilt trip on me, and others who voted Labour last time, but I'm not playing that game. If National/ACT win the election, and three years down the track, we are all bitching about the terrible job they have done, I will not hold you, and others who voted for them, responsible. I will respect that you made what you believed to be the best decision at the time.
That is what mature adults do.
I will vote National? That’s news to me.
You must be awfully proud of Robbo’s $100 Billion spend-up with nothing to show for it + the co-governance mess that Labour have landed us in. The only way National could ‘make things worse’ is if they have a dastardly plan to blow NZ up with a hydrogen bomb.
Yeah, good on you mate. It’s time to man up and ensure the defeat of the appalling Left wing hydra that threatens the economic and social stability of our country. We either stop them now or New Zealand will be finished, we will become a banana republic. It is that serious.
You clearly have a reading comprehension problem, or simply an unwillingness to accept my choice to make my own decision. I did not say National would "make things worse." Not once. It is a real shame that people here, seem incapable of having a discussion about political parties in general, without constantly attacking others for their previous voting decisions. I have expressed my opinions about various parties, but I have not once criticised any individual for their views, or the choices they make. Why do so many of you feel the need to do that?
Either way, there is nothing to be gained by continuing to debate with you. I hope for your sake, that whichever party you vote into government, meets your expectations over the next three years.
I have ZERO expectations other than it won’t be the toxic & destructive LABGREETEPATI nightmare! People will leave NZ in droves, in absolute droves, if that hideous monstrosity takes power. Who will leave? Anyone with skills, money, gumption, and a desire to do right by themselves & their families. You have been warned.
Pretty infantil responses finishing with an apocalyptic warning. Not sure, what you are smoking, but this is quite dumb behaviour if you want people to take you seriously.
While I agree that Labors record is not very good, they still brought us better to the other side of the pandemic than many other governments did that with their citizens. And no, I don't like the racist policies they implemented either, but neither 3 waters nor co-governance for water and health is the end of the world. Sure - they do increase bureaucracy and they insure that some of the warm bodies sitting around the governing boards will have darker skin. Don't tell me though that our previous system to elect e.g. heathboards produced a better result - it was more a random selection of people, and most of them selected either by random or because the voter happened to have heard the name of the person who populated the health boards.
The Greens actually do some good environmental stuff, if it would not be for their Left wing (and nothing to do with Green) socialist policies. But yes, this is a different subject.
There used to be even a time when the Maori party was respectable instead of racist (think Peter Sharples), but sure ... this was the good old times.
While I am sure that a government formed by National in combination with ACT hellbound to cut public services and budgets and a populist Winston First would be different, there is so far no evidence that it would be any better than the alternative.
You must have a look at how the tories used to downrun the British economy - hey, this used to be the 5th strongest economy in the world, and now it is the sick man of Europe. We clearly don't need to rerun the British experiment, do we? The results of a tory govenmnet here won't be better than over there.
So - better hope (and contribute) that the Liberals get enough votes to stabilise the madness coming from both the political left as well as the political right. If you don't support TOP, you are clearly responsible for the misery which is likely to unfold here in NZ in the next 3 years without a political centre party! You have been warned ;) ;
Discl: This post needs to be read in context, it contains irony and is an in-kind response to some previous posts.
"Hey Ilam voters, let's all randomly vote for the TOP Party!" -- Anon
"Sure absolutely why not! I don't know who they are, but they've definitely got my vote!" -- Ilam voters
A tactical voter who liked TOP would give their electorate vote to Manji to try and get him into parliament, whereas a party vote TOP is a waste of time as there's no hope in hell of TOP getting 5%, so that means they can party vote for which ever party they'd prefer TOP to align with.
It looks like about 14% of voters in Ilam like TOP and are therefore willing to give Manji their electorate vote & will take the chance that Manji will go with a party they like in a coalition. This is according to the most recent poll. Not sure what else can be said; Right and Left voters have no incentive to give Manji their vote, as they have no idea who he'd go with.
This precedent, most of whom the electorate voted for him, and party voted National.
Agree again, it's just an illustration of how tactical electorate voting can put someone in parliament, and party vote whom they want them to work with. Manji is a minnow compared to Dunne, but he does have a significant following in Ilam, albeit likely to lose. Probably TOP destined to another three years at least in the political wilderness.
That's called the 'margin of error' of the poll.
Apparently these are the parties contesting the electorate of Ilam:
------------------------
DemocracyNZ
Green
Labour
Legalise Cannabis
National
New Conservative
Opportunities aka The Opportunities Party aka TOP
------------------------
Legalise Cannabis might do better than TOP.
You don't seem to accept that he had to be voted in every three years, at each of the elections? That had to start somewhere. He won the electorate vote for many years and stood as a supply partner holding ministerial positions, and when not as an independent. He achieved a great deal, it is an illustration that an individual who wins an electorate vote can get into parliament and make a difference.
Anyway, this is all academic on current polling, TOP and Manji don't appear to stand a chance of winning Ilam, and ergo a seat in parliament.
I think he expresses his contention somewhat better and stays on point with his message. You just seem to enjoy initiating an argument with wind-up statement then engaging in the argument that follows, without ever acknowledging whether the counter argument has any merit whatsoever.
Cheers, I'm done for tonight on this.
That's total crap, Baa_Baa, I didn't do any of that. I wrote this:
"Not a precedent; different situation."
To which you started your reply with "Whatever, ..." which is pretty rude. Then you argued the point.
And then I wrote this:
"But the "precedent" was an incumbent (Peter Dunne). Totally different situation. Chalk and cheese."
...Which is not at all dissimilar to what Logen wrote.
How did that upset you?
TOP must be too reasonable, the media give them no coverage.
Maybe Raf should suggest cutting the cable and letting the pig islanders fend for themselves.
Whether a $1 Billion injection of taxpayer funds into Christchurch represents a 'sensible view and policy' is a matter for debate, as are all TOP's other policies.
Some people make the mistake of thinking that if something is 'shiny and new' then that means it must also invariably be 'good'. I don't turn off my critical thinking skills simply because something is 'new'.
You sound like a pig islander.
Sadly Raf is succumbing to the NZ politicians need to buy votes with taxpayer money. Perhaps he should ask Shane Jones how that went for him in Northland
National also tried for that matter, in the bye election where the first thing they said was have "six" bridges and vote for us, Northlanders said they were not for sale and voted in Winston, then turned around and said the same thing to Shane Jones and NZF. At least one electorate in the country has some integrity.
On the contrary I think you should turn a blind eye to new political parties with inexperience.
Otherwise you leave it to PR machines, battling each other with their talking points, but no solutions being offered (especially long term ones which new parties can bring up).
Thank you very much.
You need to read the fine print.
All these polls have a margin of error of (depending on the sample size) at least 3%. 8% and 12% are just 4 points (which is less than the margin of error, which would be 6 points) apart, i.e. ACT might not have changed at all or even might have dropped from the 8% measurement to the 12% measurement.
Stats 101.
I'm talking about the breathless reporting from the media...."ACT are collapsing!!!!"
That's based on the Newshub Reid Research poll.
A couple of nights later on OneNews, according to their poll: "ACT are steady on 12%"
Now scroll on to today, the 28th, and you get this story on the NZ Herald -
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/elec...EAHYYD73CBCMI/
'And despite being on a string of ups, the Act Party has hit a down in the polls, according to the latest Newshub Reid Research Poll released earlier this week.
Christopher Luxon’s preferred coalition partner dropped to single digits from 10.1 per cent to 8.8 per cent.
It means Act and National would only be able to secure around 60 seats, needing New Zealand First to return to Parliament to get across the line.
Act leader David Seymour isn’t worried about the poll result and is confident that an Act-National alliance is still possible.'
OK - I see a lot of focus in the discussion on tactics (is there a point to do tactical voting based on some polls with a huge margin of error). I don't see any focus on strategy and long term goals.
If you look at any society where people are allowed to freely express their opinions, than you have ALWAYS something like 1/3rd of the society voting right, no matter what (most of them decent conservatives and some of them with autocratic tendencies). You have as well a similar amount of always left voting people (most of them decent and honest socialists and some of them with dictatorial tendencies) - and you have roughly 1/3rd in the middle. The often called "Centre".
These people in the centre actually decide the elections, given that the rest does not change their views, no matter what. The centre will, depending on their current views of what the smallest evil might be either vote left or vote right.
If they have their own party in parliament, than this adds stability to the political system, otherwise you have the centre just swapping from one term to the next from the left to the right and back - resulting too often in one party having the majority (like Labour this term, thanks to the bulldog Judith Collins being the alternative) and abusing this power by doing things the majority never wanted (like co-governance).
Without getting this centre party back into parliament its not hard to envisage, that this time the right block feels bas on the results that they are allowed to do whatever they want, they will pi** of enough liberals and the pendulum will swing back next term.
This is a highly inefficient way to run a country (just imagine a company changing not just the CEO but as well the course every 3 years) - and we obviously all pay for this. Lots of wasted tax payer dollars for never used plans and never completed implementations and lots of wasted opportunities.
This is the reason we need a Centre party in parliament. They can talk with both sides, they can work with both sides, and they can keep the ship on a course which is agreeable to both sides.
That's the reason why I think it would be good for all New Zealanders for a liberal party to get back into parliament - and TOP is the only candidate for this position I currently can see.
Obviously - we can as well keep voting every 3 or 6 years a new government, destroy everything the guys before did and get voted out before the new guys achieve what they say they want.
Not very sensible if you look at it from the outside, but maybe we just enjoy rocking the boat and the thrill to wonder whether it will sink next time we swap from one extreme (like a Labour super majority) to the other.
Every time somebody asks for hard right solutions, they should remember that for each right wing person there is as well a left wing person in the country. Instead of throwing the wheel around every other time we vote, it would be much better to agree on sensible and clever solutions we all can live with. And yes, to achieve that you need to be able to talk with the other block ... and this would be typically the liberals in National (well, whoever is left), the liberals in Labour and to stabilize that you need a Liberal party as anchor in parliament.
This might happen this time or not, but this does not change the fact, that it would be good for the country - for all of us.
Hey, this even could be a reason for tactical voting :) ;
Well NZ First would say that they are that 'centre' party, and then you have Peter Dunnes party, United Future, which styled itself as the centrist 'common sense' party. You always hear Winston talk about 'common sense' as well. Common sense is a political sense is used to describe pragmatism, the ability to work with either side of the political spectrum.
Of course, a party in the centre has no real overriding vision with which to sell itself. It's just a mish-mash of ideas from both right and left, with the exact mixture being poorly defined. And this is why centrist parties tend to attract a low proportion of overall votes. They can't say they stand for 'private ownership and state ownership' because it's a contradiction. They can't say they stand for 'more regulation and less state interference' because once again it's a contradiction. There is nothing to really hang your hat on if you are a centrist. The slogan could be: 'Vote for us, we're milquetoast!'
Parties in the dead centre, attracting anywhere from 5% to 15%, invariably have to go into coalition with somebody, and this is where a new set of problems begin for them. Invariably, their supporters don't think with a hive mind so some will be unhappy with the choice the party leadership has made. At this point, the seeds are sown for support to ebb away. The next issue is that blame & consequence for all the failings of the new government will fall disproportionately on the centrist party. They can easily be pushed under the threshold at the subsequent election, and indeed we have seen this happen to NZ First time and again, and United Future ceased to exist after a brief moment of glory. All that was left was Dunne clinging on for some years in Ohariu due to his personal following, while NZ First is only able to revive its fortunes via Winstons personal following.
So TOP represents a new dawn for the centrist dream, but one which will have to confront the same set of issues. If it can ever get a foothold in Parliament.