Is the Opportunity Party left wing?

No. They’re not right wing either. People are trying to fit them into L/R boxes, but they don’t fit. They’re progressive centrists of the like we haven’t seen before, orthogonal¹ to the traditional Left/Right spectrum. This is not the centrism of Peters or Dunne.

Some might ask why people on the left are against OP’s land value tax. Isn’t taking money from the rich and giving to the poor a good thing?

Whole system design policy

First let’s understand that like the Greens, OP presents policy within whole system design. We can’t understand the LVT policy without understanding the UBI policy and OP’s kaupapa on how to create a good New Zealand. But equally we should apply our own whole systems thinking. We can’t understand OP’s version of a UBI without looking at its genesis, all the way from Gareth Morgan’s anti-beneficiary, anti-welfare original design. For historical context and philosophical underpinnings, I’ve written critiques of TOP UBI policies in the past.

The main selling point of the package is that the Citizen’s Income UBI version would free up beneficiaries and low wage earners from the punitive, demeaning aspects of our current social security system, while giving people who can work and find jobs better standing in the precariat. The UBI would be tax-free, and beneficiaries would no long be penalised for being in a relationship, for taking on casual or part time work, or for having assets.

Wealthier people would pay more tax so not benefit financially from the CI in the same way, and middle income workers would have something to tide them over if they lose their jobs or are transitioning.

That’s assuming OP in a centre left government. But once those bad things are abolished, we also lose the good, including our current legislation that gives beneficiaries entitlements. When the right are in power again, they can change the conditions of a UBI. Any UBI that isn’t tory-proofed is a huge risk.

But even with the left, the policy is a problem. It doesn’t substantially increase the income of people who cannot work for whatever reason. It still blows my mind that beneficiaries who cannot work get the UBI to replace their existing income, whereas people who can work, get the UBI on top of other earnings.

Disabled people and young mums on benefits are particularly badly served here, but so are people who cannot find work.

Opportunity’s response to criticism is to say no-one will be worse off. That’s another way of saying we’re not going to raise people out of poverty if they cannot work. People who can work, and can find work, theoretically would do well out of the CI, and this is a big reason to consider a UBI.

But designing a policy that leaves a large number of people in poverty is both ideologically and economically unsound.

The Land Value Tax is regressive

Looking at the LVT aspect of the policy, a tax which is designed to pay for the above, we can see the same ideological underpinnings. While OP has improved their policy over the years from Morgan’s anti-beneficary position, it’s still wholly inadequate, and they’re not good at explaining it or the detail.

OP’s land value tax of 1.75% to be paid yearly is unaffordable for beneficiaries. Of note is that they would defer payments for elders, but not disabled people. The tax would be offset by the UBI for some people, but beneficiaries need the UBI to get out of poverty.

This screams of either not understanding how welfare works, or not particularly caring. Better to tax actual excess wealth, or capital gains at sale. See the Greens’ 2023 and 2026 tax policies.

The LVT policy further commodifies whenua instead of moving us to kaitiaki guardianship models, a kind of cementing in of neoliberal values rather than liberating us from neoliberalism.

The policy financially coerces low wealth people to move (if you can’t afford the LVT sell your house and buy something cheaper!). Often away from family, friends, support, schools, thus breaking down community and increasing travel/carbon miles.

Some argue we already have rates, and people are already highly mobile. Those are neoliberal arguments not leftist ones. Do we want strong communities who take care of the land or not? Do we want to remove welfare poverty or not?

The dilemma for the left

Lots to critique. Here’s the dilemma for the left. OP are consistently polling above 5%. The closer we get to the election and this is sustained, the more likely it is they will be in parliament, and hold the balance of power. In other words, the left will probably need OP to form government.

I rate Quilae Wong. She is smart, interviews well, has a calm presence and is socially intelligent. Parliament would be improved by her presence. I say that knowing she is not leftist, and much of OP’s policy is progressive neoliberal.

I know little about the rest of the party candidates, but while their policy is often flawed their kaupapa is often a good complement to that of parties to the left of them. I’m not saying vote for them (I’m not going to), but we do need to think strategically about the situation and how it might play out. The ideal outcome at this point is a Labour/Green government with OP on the cross benches to give them time to learn the ropes before being part of a government arrangement. But it may be that the voters’ choice is L/G with OP providing Confidence and Supply.

1. thanks to Lprent for this concept, he used it to explain the Green Party. ↩︎