Written By:
- Date published:
9:17 am, July 3rd, 2026 - 115 comments
Categories: capitalism, democratic participation, Economy, International, MMP, political parties, Politics, TOPS, uncategorized -
Tags:
Denmark produces excellent beer, world class design, unmanageable open sandwiches and an object lesson in the operation of proportional representation. A particular interest in Denmark is triggered by the emergence of the Opportunity Party as a possible threshold party in the NZ system. It may, at a stretch, arrive at 5%, which, as commentators have opined, could have a significant effect on the coming election’s outcome.
To be clear, I’m not a fan of MMP. I voted for STV all those years ago and would have preferred to stay with first-past-the-post rather than make the change.. That is history. The art of NZ politics, by popular choice, is to make proportional representation work.
Back to Denmark. For a long time, the Danish system enjoyed multi-party government, under the sway of either Right (Liberal/Conservative) or Left (Social Democrat) parties. This was in the context the longer-term depth and stability of the 1933 Kanslergade Settlement , Denmark’s version of the Keynesian Accommodation.
In 2021, led by a previous PM, and echoing the TV programme “Borgen” and Swedish party arrangements, a Moderate Party was formed, with the explicit intention of consolidating a “centre” to which the Left and Right might choose to adhere. This project seems to have influenced the outcome of the 2022 elections and taken root after the 2026 elections. It’s early days, but it’s worth watching.
The Danish Moderate Party speaks to the avowed intention of proportional representation – to reflect popular choice and, in the process, protect the centre as the focus towards which politics is orientated. The Moderate Party invokes the moderating intention of proportional representation, the marginalisation of extremes, or, if of a cynical bent, the preservation of Capital’s conditions of existence.
So we come to the current state of play of MMP in New Zealand. The two bigger, traditional parties – National and Labour – play the MMP game with an evident reluctance. The habits of old die hard
New Zealand First has benefitted from this arrangement – the bumptious upstart unconcerned about the evident distaste shown by the bigger parties, and happy to play along, up to a point. Mr Peters sees clearly the pragmatics of the situation. To date, New Zealand First has been the only party to play the MMP card con brio.
The Greens – more serious, less flexible, trying to meld two different traditions – find difficult the accommodations and alliances expected of MMP, especially when their most obvious ally – Labour – does little to encourage hopes of an alliance, and the Blue-Green tendency is currently missing in action.
ACT has determined by policy choice and word to ally by choice only with National, and, even then, finds it uncomfortable when, for example, MMP draws in New Zealand First. Te Pati Maori cannot decide whether the whole shebang is a colonial ploy, or is a system in which two games – separatism and accommodation – may be played simultaneously to advantage. It will strike arrangements with Labour and the Greens, and, possibly, other parties, but such arrangements are brittle.
What about the recent visibility of the Opportunity Party? Let’s recognise immediately that there has been much hyperbole spouted about its chances in the coming election That said, the OP is offering itself to the voter as the equivalent of the Moderates in the Danish system. It may have moved from the policy purism of its early days (and cats are no longer a target), but it is, first, thinking outside the box on, for example. tax and economic policy, and, second, it is presenting as able to work with any of the major MMP outcomes.
It is, as is the very different New Zealand First, prepared to work to the rules and expectations of the MMP system. In doing so, it challenges New Zealand First to up its game, and Labour and National to consider carefully their engagement with the MMP system. It’s not going away soon.
If one is a strong supporter of MMP, the rise of OP and its reaching the 5% are an exciting prospect. Indeed, one might be wishing that we had the Danish 2% threshold.
It's hard not to be hopeful that op, can be the stary of the end of nzf,
Give labour a stable ally given tpm a radical and unstable
I hope this is not foreplay to offering the Opportunities Party an Epsom arrangement.
National did it to maintain the existence of a right wing party that (had been voted into parliament at over 5% of the vote already – 1996 and 1999 and 2002)
*could only partner it
*ensure no wasted centre-right vote
*to narrative by doing so it was the right wing party that was relatively centrist.
This is not the case of a so called swing party of the "centre".
If the Opportunities Party was sponsored to be a rival to NZF, it would have to partner NACT to demonstrate its independence from Labour.
The Maori Party once did that and has yet to be in a coalition government with Labour.
Short version, centrist or swing parties are not beholden to right or left favour to be there.
And to date all political parties have got into parliament via the public vote.
(The Green Party is not around because Labour wanted a party to their left in parliament – while they joined the New Labour breakaway orbit in 1996, they broke free of it before the 1999 election – and Labour pointedly states it won't adopt their better polices on taxation – even though they are currently closer to OECD norms than Labour's).
PS Opportunities Party utility as a centrist party is post 2029 (when Peters is an ex politician)
The OP is far more suited to work with Labour and the Greens.
If so, why do they characterise themselves as a centre party (an alternative to NZF in government coalitions)?
How would they demonstrate they are a centrist party, as they say, if they were assisted by Labour into a seat to get into parliament?
Then become dependent on that seat to stay in parliament?
I don't know why they do that, perhaps it's their way of aiming for widespread appeal which is then converted into votes? Really don't know, but their strategy person would be the one to ask.
Again, I wouldn't know, but the leader has said they're a party who can work with either side. So in the hypothetical you've posed, I guess that could signal they've decided to work with Labour? Whether they'd continue to hold themselves out as centrist in the scenario you've described, I wouldn't know, but I can't see inconsistency in them continuing to say what they say, even in the situation you've described, which if it happened (and Hipkins is signalling the opposite) surely it'd be no surprise because they're shouting from the rooftops how they're a party that can work with either of the bigger parties.
As far as becoming dependent on the hypothetical seat to stay in parliament goes, I haven't thought that far ahead, but you could ask Opportunity's strategy people, they may well have.
I would agree with Nigel if Opp had said something like "normally we would negotiate with the party that gets the highest vote first, but at this election we believe National has actively encouraged and supported a coalition of the far-right and so we will negotiate with Labour first in November".
But they have done nothing of the sort. Opp has made it plain is happy to support another three years of this godawful rabble. For that reason, IMO, they have zero credibility.
…..and in another fast-track decision Meridian has been today given consent to draw more water from Lake Pukaki. Again this will significantly alleviate any "dry-year" issue.
We don't need the LNG imports.
Note: I mis-heard. The solar farm above covers 320 rugby pitches in area, which is around 270 hectares.
Aye, that's the nub, BG!
It's not that they're not credible – we can plainly see what they are willing to enable.
Qiulae, I believe, said that they could work with National only because Luxon said that they were a left wing party. However, in a king making position, I think they would lean towards Labour. I think they would support National only if it were the only way a government could be formed.
Mikesh – faced with the prospect of becoming part of the Government or not – they must choose becoming. Therefore, your "leaning toward Labour" line is too weak to matter.
"leaning toward Labour" line is too weak to matter.
Well, tough.
Denmark now makes me shudder. It would be a very tough place for NZ politics to get to.
Labour is now our centre party. To parallel Denmark's new ideological context, NZ would become strongly anti-immigration and strongly nationalist.
Denmark is heading to a hard place, wealthy and strong though it may be.
I'll be fighting against that in 2026.
the problem we have is that the issues underlying the anti-immigration sentiment, and that the right are using to their advantage, aren't being addressed by the left and the left is calling people who are concerned racist. Stalemate, but I think the right will win if we don't find different way.
aren't being addressed by the left
I share your view. Labour is fortunate NZ is not in Europe, so we can discount the salience of racism somewhat. I suspect I'm at the peak of the Bell Curve in having no principled objection to immigration while seeing Nat/Lab as persistent screw-ups on the issue. I'm disinclined to share your view of the right winning if the left doesn't do the issue differently, simply because lack of economic recovery will sway way more votes than hostility to excess foreigners around the place.
lack of economic recovery is one of the key drivers of concern about immigration. In the UK, Reform are currently polling higher than Labour or the Tories, and have been all year. One of Reform's major platforms is anti-immigration.
We're not there yet, but it would be good if we didn't get there and that requires the left to do something differently, otherwise why would people bother voting for them.
This is a statement which could only come from the Left.
Both Labour and National are centrist parties (one centre left, the other centre right).
some would say Labour have been pulled so far right that they occupy the centre now. Compared to say in the 70s.
I'm sure that the right would reciprocate the statement, and say that National has been pulled so far left that they occupy the centre.
that wouldn't be true though, would it.
Definitely true insofar as the Nats have trended away from closet fascism since Muldoon did Black Power solidarity and went onto the Rocky Horror Show to ensure nobody took him seriously anymore.
You can put a jelly (if anyone still makes them) in the middle of the table yet folks may not be impressed (Luxon). Such pragmatic centrism needs some kind of a stance to go with it that emanates mana, like Sir Ed.
we were talking about the Overton Window and where parties sit in relation to that.
A worthy topic, for sure. So I googled Overton Window nz salience.
That tetrad of links implies systemic sourcing as basis of text synthesis. It proceeds to list a pentad of political/cultural contexts within Aotearoa found to correlate with perceived salience. Tech point: salience, for creatures, is way more felt than thought about. Intelligent design plus tech gets us a simulation of collective salience. It represents our collective reality to us on a screen, so we sceptics scan that with our bullshit detector. Their 5th dimension is worth a look:
I like that it reads populism as variant, allowing for radical tendencies and widening the window. Niche advocacy groups have now been emerging for 6 decades, so we have immense variance in political ecology via sub-cultural norms – separate to sheeple norms.
now ask google's AI to exclude analysis of comparison with the US, and tell it specifically to exclude US references.
Instead ask it to look at the Overton Window in the context of NZ politics since 1900. Also ask for the same with a particular focus on the Overton Window since the 1970. And ask for references that are well constructed by people with experience without being overly academic and to exclude reddit, FB etc.
Well, I take your point that particularising like that narrows user focus toward essentials. I agree that anchoring in user experience is better than authority figures & social media. I'd extend the window to include our only substantial radical govt from the early 1890s thro the turn of the century since it achieved way more than Labour.
Just as true from their perspective, as the shift of Labour rightwards is from the left.
Just compare the ‘right’ of Holyoake to the National government of today.
are you suggesting that the Overton Window in NZ hasn't moved rightwards since neoliberalism and that it's just a matter of political perception?
When is 'neoliberalism'? Do you mean the Lange government in the 80s?
Your original post mentioned the 70s. And I certainly don't see Muldoon as any bastion of the Left – and he was in power for the latter half of the 70s. Was Lange worse than Muldoon from a Left perspective? I can see the argument – but it's a strange one coming from the left….
I can certainly see an opposing argument that the Overton window in NZ has moved leftwards since, say, the 1960s.
It's all a matter of your perspective – both in your position in the political spectrum, and your starting point in history.
Certainly society (not just politics) has radically changed since the 70s. For example, the possibility of an unmarried bisexual woman as co-leader of a political party – would have been beyond comprehension at the time.
Under MMP, not so surprising
(Marilyn Waring MP 1987-1984)
It's an illustration of social change since the 70s, not political change.
And Waring is an interesting example. Arguably, she only entered Parliament for National – because of the homosexual law reform bill, proposed by Venn Young from the National Party.
She, however, was never a party leader – nor in contention to be so.
In the 80s, Helen Clark – with serious political ambitions – was effectively told to get married (regardless of her feminist views on the institution).
https://www.1news.co.nz/2018/03/07/helen-clark-says-being-unmarried-female-pm-at-37-would-not-have-been-possible-when-she-entered-politics/
I didn't say the 60s, I said since neoliberalism, and yes that started in NZ with the Lange government.
You said the 70s in the original comment.
The point is, that you can pick any point in history which supports your argument about the shift of the Overton Window.
Others can equally choose a different point in history, and note a different shift.
See https://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2023
Seeing Labour as a centre party does not mean they are at the centre – just that they are left of National, and right of the Green Party.
I would agree with you – however that was not Weka's perspective:
I used to be a supporter of lowering the threshold, but TOP changed my mind lol. It's not that I think they are bad for MMP, I think they are good on ideas and presentation. But the number of lefties who won't see the problems in TOP policy is alarming.
But sure, lower the threshold or TOP gets 5% and things change. That's probably good. Peters has been fucking up MMP for far too long. A centrist party that is politically sane would be an improvement.
No matter how "sane" they might be – if they enable the return of National, they enable more of this destruction. They will have no power. ACT has no power – they are simply the excuse for National's ambitions.
Imho, the CoC's ‘centre of gravity’ has gone from Nact to nACT during this term, although the Nats are temporarily tacking towards the centre for the election.
Still, NACT's joint goal is to wreck New Zealand Aotearoa and sell off the parts that provide solid investment opportunities for the sorted, wherever they may be.
https://vote.nz/
I think it’s been a common perception with many from day one that ACT was one tail wagging the Coalition dog. This perception was strengthened by the poor performance and management skills of its figurehead [Luxon]. I find it hard to believe that National and Luxon would be so cunning and show such mastery of political strategy that they planted & controlled ACT as a Coalition puppet as a plausible excuse for enacting ACT’s Atlas-infused policies as if they weren’t their own [National’s]. Then again, there’s the Epsom situation, so it’s possible, which means that ACT’s agenda was really National’s agenda all along and the Coalition largely is a large con job, by and large – it’s academic though.
Nat cunning was supplied by McCully, folks claimed. No evident replacement yet, but perhaps academic for anyone using the control system overview. I'm less paranoid nowadays but the ratio of rw thinktanks to lw globally usually suffices to restore (un)healthy paranoia levels for more perceptive observers of the power structure. If Trump's performance thus far is indicative of the control system, then it is clearly in a state of dysfunction.
If he's playing an establishment game this term, we ought to watch the ratio of those playing along to those jumping ship. "War, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing, say it again…" So the Russian couple that hung their love slogan on the Empire State Building could be a sign of the times.
Replacement for McCully? Surely that has to be the NZ Taxpayer Union and the NZ Initiative and associated organisations. Hasn't the Minister of Finance's adviser gone back to the NZ Initiative?
My take is that those orgs do policy lobbying, not political consultancy, but could be back-channel interaction also happens, so I'm open to that scenario.
A situation could arise where, if they don't support National, at least with a C&S agreement, another election would be necessary. The electorate would not thank them for that.
yes, I wasn't commenting on TOP being of value to the Overton Window, but that they are in fact an improvement on the fuckery of MMP by Peters since we've had MMP.
Disagree about the power. ACTs fingerprints are all over a lot of the shit that's been done this term. Likewise, the Greens have power despite being the smaller party on the left.
One thing that has struck me reading this thread is how much of the discussion assumes TOP has to justify its existence in relation to Labour, National, or the existing political order.
Can they work with National? Should they work with Labour? Are they really left-wing? Are they really centrist?
But that seems to miss the more interesting question entirely.
Why is a shamelessly anti-establishment, policy-focused party polling this well in the first place?
New Zealand has had MMP for nearly thirty years and, yes, more parties in Parliament. But the underlying political dynamic has remained remarkably bloc-based. Elections have still largely revolved around two competing alliances led by Labour and National.
MMP makes fragmentation mechanically more possible, but it doesn't create it. Voters do.
A proportional system simply gives dissatisfied voters somewhere to go without completely wasting their vote. The reason they go there in the first place is because the existing political blocs no longer feel like they represent them.
That's why I find so much of the discussion about who TOP "should" support slightly beside the point. It doesn't owe Labour, the left, or anyone else its loyalty simply because many of its policies are broadly aligned with them.
It owes its loyalty to the people who vote for it.
If TOP's rise continues, it may suggest that New Zealand's traditional two-bloc politics is beginning to show signs of strain. That's not unprecedented. Denmark's party system gradually became far more fragmented as support for the old dominant parties weakened, producing a much more complex coalition environment.
Whether New Zealand follows that path remains to be seen. But I think that is the actual debate: not whether TOP has permission to exist or whether it can be neatly classified as left or right.
Its support already justifies its existence. The real question is what that support is telling us about the electorate.
Yes but – TOP has to align with one main party of the other, if it reaches the mark. It will/would have next-to-no power/influence and so you must ask, what will it enable? It's particular policies matter very little; the big parties will taink them very much then screw them very much – is that what we want?
I think you’re putting the cart before the horse here.
TOP’s influence would depend on its criticality in forming a government after the election. If its votes are necessary, it has leverage. If they aren’t, it doesn’t. That’s coalition politics.
It doesn’t have to permanently align with either major party beforehand. It simply has to be a viable and believable coalition partner for both.
That is precisely what gives a smaller party negotiating power under MMP.
Why would we expect TOP to give up that leverage just to help Labour? And are we really trying to tell voters considering TOP that they are wrong, and that what they actually want is Labour anyway?
I understand the sentiment. I also want this coalition gone. But I don’t think ignoring the message a significant number of voters appear to be sending is a particularly good long-term political strategy. If people are looking elsewhere, the first question should be why.
I don't believe TOP would have leverage if called-upon to secure A National-led Government. They are new, "innocent" of the grinder that is negotiation and will be spat-out, subtly, were they foolish enough to enable a National Government at this election. They may have good policies, but they have no real power. The Māori Party supported Key and look, where are Māori now?
Maybe. But now we're just making assumptions about how hypothetical coalition negotiations TOP participates in might play out, rather than engaging with the fact that almost 5% of the electorate apparently wants to see them in Parliament.
Coalition negotiations are strange beasts. Before 2023, a government in which the junior parties appeared to exercise so much influence would have seemed highly unlikely.
Yet here we are.
Ultimately, TOP's leverage and negotiating power depends on the numbers and political situation after the election, not our assumptions before it.
National wants to be seen by centrist voters as more liberal than NZF and more moderate a shill for capital than ACT. It had no problem pandering to their agendas because its own caucus has people who wanted that to happen.
It's an evolution of Key's strategy – after Brash failed to win via the National central right wing command way in 2005 (and got less votes than Labour).
You are seeing it clearly, SPC.
"Ultimately, TOP's leverage and negotiating power depends on the numbers and political situation after the election, not our assumptions before it."
I don't agree.
What they offer is NOT the same as what they (will be allowed to) deliver.
This is the nub.
TOP may offer great things, but can they deliver those, with the good grace of their host (National)?
I think, no chance, Lance!
They will accept crumbs, or rather, facsimiles of what they want, after the Nat-machine has ground them into Blue pulp.
I think it's very naive to think TOP will influence the direction the present Government has taken. Why do you think otherwise?
I'm not arguing that they will. I'm arguing that enough voters apparently think they might, under the right political circumstances.
Whether those voters are right or wrong is almost beside the point.
The interesting political question is why they believe TOP offers them a better chance of achieving those outcomes than Labour, the Greens, or National do.
my guess is that for some it's a matter of being presented some innovative broad brush policy, and the great desire for change from the existing duopoly. It's been remarkably difficult to get lefties for instance to take the anti-welfare stance seriously, but everyone loves a UBI right?
A UBI is probably part of that appeal because it is immediately comprehensible: everyone gets a basic income, no Work and Income bureaucracy, no moralising about who is deserving, no endless tinkering at the margins.
You can critique the numbers and the distributional effects, and those critiques matter. But politically, the idea has a clarity that Labour and National often lack while they argue over marginal changes to income tax, welfare settings, and property investment.
I'd wager for those voters, TOP looks like a party offering a different system rather than a slightly different way of managing the existing one.
"…TOP looks like a party offering …"
Yeah, but…
TOP don't offer anything at all, bar smoke and fog, because they have no clout at all.
If they get "welcomed-aboard" by National, they will gain/leverage nothing at all, beyond what National want.
yeah, but I'm not convinced yet it is real. If the replacement system makes people worse off on welfare. This is what I mean by the broad brush appeals, but voting for a pretty picture? I get it, but it's not governance.
TOP don't offer anything at all, bar smoke and fog, because they have no clout at all.
If you think that UBI is just "smoke and fog" then you need to educate yourself. I would recommend a couple of books by Guy Standing*: Basic Income, and The Corruption
of Capitalism.
*phd in economics (Cambridge), specializing in labour economics. Probably UK’s leading authority on, and advocate for, UBI.
I'd wager for those voters, TOP looks like a party offering a different system rather than a slightly different way of managing the existing one.
That's what happened in the '30s when the "great depression" set people to thinking that there must be a better way, and then, probably as a consequence, Labour was elected.
There are some who think that we are heading toward another worldwide depression almost as bad.
Gareth Morgan created the concept as a way to appeal to younger voters concerned about New Zealand's economic outlier status – the only OECD nation without a CGT or estate tax (2/3rd have both).
That Morgan himself never advocated for any action in these areas is for me, the tell.
Offering those renting UI (more money to give to their landlords) funded by a land tax on those who owned their home – protected the uber rich who would otherwise be paying the CGT or estate tax. It would of course make paying a mortgage more difficult – thus Kiwi Saver funds providing long term rentals.
Like the current National Party Morgan wanted more money out of incomes into Kiwi Saver. Unlike the government he was prepared to admit that would mean fewer future home owners and more long term renters.
The Opportunities Party was created to split the progressive vote. The same way the New Zealand Party was created to end Muldoonism.
If TOP was created as some kind of deliberate vote-splitting operation, it seems like a remarkably inefficient one. Which, admittedly, is not totally off-brand for Gareth Morgan.
It has now been around for several election cycles without entering Parliament, burning through money, candidates, leadership changes, and public credibility along the way.
It seems much simpler to me that TOP exists because a small but persistent constituency wants something like it to exist.
Whether that constituency is large enough to cross the threshold is the actual question.
Would such a party exist, if there was a CGT and estate tax (as 2/3rd of the OECD does)?
And if there was a zero tax threshold, as in Oz?
That said.
*UI is one response to high unemployment resulting from AI and robotics (as would less immigration)
*A land tax on homeowners (with employment) could fund that
(we would still need a CGT on property and estate tax to fund the public delivery state).
So post 2029/2030's it might come into relevance.
I think the creation of TOP and the current polling of its current version are entirely different issues.
Could or would TOP cause vote-splitting? Possibly, yes.
Is there an appetite for TOP, its policies, and its MO? Apparently, yes.
These are not mutually exclusive, in any case.
wait, how is it not vote splitting? A third centrist party will be definition get its votes from the centre (or just to either side)
In the arithmetic sense, yes, any new party draws votes from somewhere.
But the bigger question is why parties keep targeting that particular segment of the electorate in the first place, even at the risk of oversaturating it.
If several parties are competing for the same voters, that suggests there is a politically valuable constituency there that no one has fully secured.
or the swing vote is the always the swing vote.
I suppose it's a challenge for Labour, to drag the Overton Window leftwards so there are less swing voters?
Are you talking in general terms about vote-splitting vs. merely competing for votes in an electoral contest? Or are you specifically talking about TOP vs another party (or parties) in a particular electorate, for example?
For example, if TOP claims a specific electoral niche that’s not covered or adequately addressed/supported by mainstream parties, then it’s not really vote-splitting, is it?
I was thinking about the party vote. If vote splitting in a seat means say party C gets in because party B splits the pool of normal party A voters to party B and Party A and neither of them get in as a result.
But yeah, it's not an easy one to think about with the list vote.
The way I see classical vote-splitting is as follows. In electorate X the two main contenders for the electorate seat are Party A on the left and Party B on the right. The gap between the two respective candidates is fairly small. A third party, Party C, enters the contest and this party is either on the left or right. So, Party C will be vote-splitting on the left or the right, respectively. This won’t matter much for the party list, which is the sum total of all votes cast for a party nation-wide – a straightforward competition for votes – but the outcome of the FPP-like electorate seat contest will heavily depend on vote-splitting because it’s a zero-sum equation.
.the Opportunities Party was created to split the progressive vote. The same way the New Zealand Party was created to end Muldoonism.
That, of course, is one interpretation. However, it doesn't invalidate the policies themselves. And, incidentally, the house holder would have been allowed to deduct interest in calculating the tax that he would have to pay on his property. So he would paid stuff all tax, particularly if he was continually upgrading.
The Opportunities Party was formed originally to reform the tax system, principally through the introduction of a UBI coupled with a flat tax, and supported by an ERoR tax. This was continued in 2020, with changes only in the arithmetic involved. In 2023 they seemed to have abandoned the UBI and replaced the other two components with a land tax. This time they have returned to a more generous UBI, retained the idea of a land tax, but they no longer are advocating a flat tax. Their other policies were largely incidental.
I think this is why their core voters have continued to support them, and I think that these policies should be subject of most of the discussions about them.
Yes, I think that is fair.
TOP’s core appeal has always been around tax, income, land, and structural economic reform. The policy mix has shifted over time, but that broad theme has been fairly consistent.
And I agree those policies should be scrutinised properly.
My point is slightly different: the fact that a constituency continues to exist for that kind of politics is itself interesting. If voters keep responding to TOP’s economic reform agenda, even after several failed elections and multiple changes of leadership and policy detail, that suggests there is some persistent unmet demand there.
So yes, discuss the policies. But also ask why those policies continue to find an audience outside the established parties.
So yes, discuss the policies. But also ask why those policies continue to find an audience outside the established parties.
The original impetus came from Morgan's book The Big Kahuna but a better exposition of these ideas would come from the writings of Guy Standing and are centred around the idea of a growing section of the labour force that he has called the "precariat". He toured NZ several years ago and I attended the talk he gave in Wellington. His books Basic Income and The Corruption of Capitalism are very illuminating.
I seriously doubt that much of the current support of TOP is driven by Gareth Morgan's writings.
Res Publica's point is well taken. If their tax/income policy remains persistently popular to a percentage of the population – why is this not being addressed by the more mainstream parties?
Of course, those parties may have run the figures – and determined that the percentage is less than 5% – so TOP votes are essentially wasted ones, unlikely to affect the election outcome.
The party which is closest to TOP in terms of their tax/income policy is the Greens. Yes, I'm quite well aware that there are significant differences. But it seems as though all of the other parties have ruled out any action in this space. Why is it that TOP voters are not attracted to the GP offering?
Labour rules out Green Party tax policy (which funds their own incomes policy). The Opportunities Party is saying, it has another option than Labour, if they are also ignored.
Thus TOP ultimately increases Green Party leverage (if Labour choose their tax option over a land tax on homeowners). What form of incomes policy would result is the unknown.
Labour needs to be gamed like that to do the right thing.
The removal of the current government is optimal, the next Labour government doing the right thing in a second term (after being gamed by a Green-TOP alliance) would be the great improvement (they wasted their 2020-23 chance, walking away from the Parker-Robertson option).
All of which ignores the question that you quote.
Why is the TOP tax/income offering more attractive to their supporters (apparently an increasing number) – than the GP one.
I don't really see the average TOP voter being so Machiavellian as to be calculating on being able to double-team Labour – especially as it seems on a knife-edge as to whether a TOP vote is a wasted one, while a GP vote is guaranteed to matter.
I think the best explanation is that parties are more than just a collection of policies. They also come with history, culture, identity, and branding.
So it may well be that there is a chunk of the electorate that broadly likes the Greens' tax and income policies, but doesn't identify with the Greens as a political movement.
Equally, there will be people who like the Greens' politics but prefer Labour's economic approach.
Political demand isn't just about policy. It's about which party people feel best represents them overall.
Not on tax policy (that funds income policy).
The Green Party requires Labour to be in a government coalition. Whereas TOP is not. That delivers leverage – as per Peters, aka NZF, it is what centre parties can do.
Also, the UI policy is attractive to younger people (no hassle with W and I if unemployed, or income instead of a living cost payment loaded onto the student loan)
cultural fit and perceptions of competency.
cultural fit and perceptions of competency.
Better policies, probably.
Preferring TOP's land tax vs GP wealth tax, or TOP's anti-welfare UBI vs GP welfare bolted on GMI is more likely to be cultural than deep policy analysis for most people.
G/L swing voters who don't like the GP focus on identity politics are offered a cleaner policy approach by TOP for instance. I can totally see why some people would prefer Wong over Swarbrick too.
Shaw stepped down to let the party go more radical, and it is probably too radical for some now, whereas TOP's centrist position is a better fit.
That's all without getting into who has the better policies.
G/L swing voters who don't like the GP focus on identity politics are offered a cleaner policy approach by TOP for instance. I can totally see why some people would prefer Wong over Swarbrick too.
I was thinking more in terms of economic issues. However I n see why some might be put off by the GP "focus on identity politics".
Res Publica's point is well taken. If their tax/income policy remains persistently popular to a percentage of the population – why is this not being addressed by the more mainstream parties?
I think Grant Robertson has, at least, looked at it. I remember him commenting when he was MoF, that he "could not see why a UBI had to accompanied by a flat tax".
I seriously doubt that much of the current support of TOP is driven by Gareth Morgan's writings.
I didn't say it was. Gareth Morgan seems to have been instrumental in starting the ball rolling here in NZ.
The notion of a UBI has been around at least since the 1920s: it was included in Cliff Douglas's book, Social Credit, published in that decade, and even he, I think, was influenced by ideas that had been floating around in Edwardian times.
Tax rates at 28%-39% + the land tax to afford the UI.
The original UI, land tax and a flat rate of tax was based on being light in support to those on benefits and on super.
Such changes however do not impact on the current structural budget deficit (lack of OECD standard taxation of CG, wealth and or estate tax).
semi-anti-establishment. They are wedded to neoliberalism. I like the energy and their media comms and Wong seems to be handling things well so far.
Less enamoured with their policies (tax and welfare), particularly the flaws and then the lack of communication to engage on explaining those. Hoping some journalists start getting into it in the next few months.
They are wedded to neoliberalism?
I guess the defining characteristics of neoliberalism would have to be small government and minimal taxation. I don't think TOP fits that definition. I know that their original idea was to simplify the taxation system, but with this lot even that seems to have become more complex.
So what would you get if NZ's electorate really went down the Denmark scale of fracturing?
Denmark's cabinet has a PM from the Social Democratic Party, and reps from the Socialist People's Party, and the Social Liberal Party and the centrist Moderates. That's only 82 of 179 seats: less than 50%.
So to pass anything of note, that melange also has a tactical arrangement with the Red-Green Alliance (Enhedslisten), which is the most left-wing party in parliament. Although it did not join the government, it agreed to provide parliamentary support in exchange for a package of social and environmental measures that have been incorporated into the coalition programme.
They call it a "four-leaf clover government" – both because it consists of four parties and because of the programme's strong environmental focus.
Overall, the new government programme is viewed as considerably greener, but OMG their immigration policies are some of the strictest in Europe. They have a zero-asylum policy, very tough residency permits, mean deportation rules, and big campaigns to deter asylum seekers. Akin to Switzerland.
Something similar would be a Labour-Oppoprtunity-NZFirst amalgam with a supply agreement with the Greens. It would be quite a PM and PM's office and Whip who could corral that lot.
I'm looking forward to working hard against this kind of thing.
It’s a good question, but I’m not sure there is a neat political science answer to it.
Fragmentation is rarely caused by one thing. It tends to happen when enough voters conclude that the existing party blocs no longer describe their material interests, values, or priorities particularly well.
So, I suppose the opportunity for Labour now is to look carefully at what drove that fragmentation in Denmark, and across much of Europe more generally, and ask whether similar pressures are beginning to appear here: and whether TOP is evidence of that pressure finding an outlet.
Because if they are, the answer probably isn’t to tell voters they are wrong. It is to understand why they are moving.
Both National and Labour can and should campaign against political instability. Only the smaller parties can afford to campaign in primarily positive frame in 2026: no one else believes in positive government anymore.
Also, since National's leadership can't adequately lead with just two partners, four would be even worse.
The better model than Denmark for New Zealand is Australia. Labor holds for now, Teals have more seats than deep Greens, but the right is in complete turmoil.
I think that the tendency to fracturing is exacerbated by the 2% threshold. That's not a high bar to get into Parliament. And once there, it's relatively easy for parties to carve out a niche in the political environment.
And, of course, if you have ten 2% parties – it reduces the size of the other larger parties in Parliament – which makes multi-headed coalitions more likely. But also makes those larger parties less of a 'broad church'; since only the core of the MPs are likely to get into Parliament – encouraging the others to split off into their own minor parties – and further increasing fragmentation.
I think that’s right. Thresholds matter because they affect how easily political demand becomes parliamentary representation.
But I’d still separate the mechanism from the cause.
A 2% threshold may make fragmentation easier to express, and may even reinforce it once smaller parties get established. But it doesn’t create the underlying political demand by itself.
Voters still have to want those parties. The policy gaps, social cleavages, and dissatisfaction with the larger parties have to exist first.
So perhaps the equation is something like: political demand follows policy gaps; electoral systems determine how easily that demand becomes representation.
I would say that a 2% as opposed to a 5% threshold encourages political fragmentation overall.
A 5% threshold requires either a major policy platform, over a long period (the Green or ACT parties); or a personality based party (NZ First is the premier example).
The "policy gaps, social cleavages, and dissatisfaction with the larger parties" – may continue to exist – but they are not large enough to matter. Low level grumbling and support for minor and single issue parties (Legalize Cannabis, Animal Justice) and even for joke parties (McGillicuddy Serious) will always exist — but don't need to be considered in the political context.
And, of course, if you have ten 2% parties – it reduces the size of the other larger parties in Parliament
That just means that 20% of the electorate are dissatisfied with the major parties. Nobody votes for a 2% party expecting it to win.
I have always advocated 0%, though there is always a natural barrier of about 0.83%. If a joke party like McGS got in I would expect them to resign their seat on election night.
If a joke party like McGS got in I would expect them to resign their seat on election night.
Yet they proclaimed themselves a serious party and incorporated serious into their title to reassure folks that they were. I suppose you could argue that doing so was a joke on sheeple. A sense of humour is a vital part of resilience for anyone (so folk going baa about it naturally toughen up).
Resigning upon getting elected does send a suitable message re faith in democracy, so I can see why a leftist would endorse such behaviour. Yet Zelensky took his satire to the top job, so it would be better for a joke party to follow his path to ultimate leverage. If you think life is too serious, vote for a funny candidate as a remedial ploy; you may get a nice surprise.
Agree about the party fracturing in Denmark Ad.
Israel is the same. It has a threshold of 3.25%, which is not that much lower than NZ's 5%. Yet many more parties get elected-there are currently 10 parties in the Knesset, much complicating coalition talks. In NZ only 5 parties reach 5%.
(Note: TPM are only in the NZ parliament because they won constituency seats)
OMG so dark comparing us to Israel's full whack-jobs! Anyone who wants to lower NZs 5% threshold should check out that mad Knesset.
Sadly missed is the number one Danish contribution to the world – LEGO.
Entirely relevant to the building-block nature of government formation….
I am rightly chastised for missing Lego, especially as our small grandson has boxes of it in sight as I type.
One of the things most interesting about NZ politics has been the lack of a long-term true centrist party. The closest was Peter Dunne's United Future party (which went into government both with Labour and National). But didn't survive the retirement of it's founder from politics (a common scenario for personality-based parties in NZ).
NZF is the other party which has been in power with both left and right. However, I would characterize it as a nationalist party, rather than a centrist one. [Open to being convinced, if someone has a good argument] And, another party which I don't see surviving the retirement from political life of its founder.
I’m setting aside TPM – as I think that it’s almost a case of two entirely different parties of the same name. And neither, really centrist in any meaningful way.
Really it is only the Green Party and ACT – both carving out political positions on the wings away from centre – which have shown real longevity.
Perhaps its the relative success of these which have driven both National and Labour towards the centre – taking up the political oxygen which would support a true centrist party.
I'm inclined to go for the serendipity triad (right person/place/time). She may be it:
He missed a golden opportunity to establish common ground by acknowledging that his point applied equally to himself and Labour. Therefore he is not a natural opportunist. He lacks adaptive capacity required for darwinian survival.
Her vision of the political potency of a nice ladylike Aker selling UBI + land tax using a radical leftist party base has potential aesthetic appeal for a significant swathe of voters but political positioning is the hinge for her to use as praxis to impress more.
Green co-leader Marama Davidson said some Opportunity policies were “awesome”, mainly because they were her own party’s repurposed in centrist clothing. “There is nothing that they add to the solutions that we aren’t already offering.”
Davidson seems to have misunderstood TOP's policies completely. She seems not to have noticed the letter "U" in UBI.
I've often pondered the tendency of GP leaders to misunderstand political terrain and situations within it. I usually either do the eye-roll or figure that they will live & learn so I ought to hope for the best. They say faith works wonders. Maybe it does so even for secular folks, huh? However going into the election without someone specialising in economic policy being used seems amateur…
Absolutely! They must find an English Lit graduate, stat! If only to stop your pondering here.
Seems you've got hung up on that letter "U" and don't understand the universality of their Income Guarantee policy:
My bold.
The original UI, land tax and a flat rate of tax was based on being light in support to those on benefits and on super.
Morgan wanted his UBI to cater fully for the needs of beneficiaries and superanuitents, but he had to admit that there would have to be top-ups. We seemed to have moved forward from that position since there now general acceptance that the UBI by itself would not be sufficient.
Geez, "Mikesh", are you being paid to represent here on TS?
Seems to me like it!
are you being paid to represent here on TS?
Seems to me like it!
Well, if you say that, I must be a pretty effective communicator, but I regret having to say I am not being paid.
Well, your handlers should be ashamed of themselves, not renumerating you for your sterling efforts to promote TOP. It's not so much that you're an effective communicator, it's more relentless communicator. Big ups, don't quail!
No need for them to be ashamed, since I'm not a member of the party. I don't even support the party; I do support some of the ideas upon which their policies are based, but that is not at all the same thing. I don’t even know for certain whether I will vote for them come November. A week is a long time in politics according to Harold Wilson. Four months must be an eternity.
I suspect I may be better informed when it comes to ideas on which their policies are based, than they themselves are.
"I suspect I may be better informed when it comes to ideas on which their policies are based, than they themselves are."
” I don’t even support the party”
Okay – got that.
"I don’t even know for certain whether I will vote for them come November"
Why not?
Why not?
I didn't provide them with a party vote in 2020 because the polls had them at 1%. I didn't vote for them at all 2023 because they seemed to have abandoned their core policies, and because I didn't like the obsequious way Raf Manji tried to obtain a "cup of tea" deal with National in Ilam.
This year I will see how things are closer to the election
So you don't know yet?
TOP = Typical Odious Profiteers
What's brought you to this conclusion? I thought their policies sounded quite progressive.
Why not?
I didn't provide them with a party vote in 2020 because the polls had them at 1%. I didn't vote for them at all 2023 because they seemed to have abandoned their core policies, and because I didn't like the obsequious way Raf Manji tried to obtain a "cup of tea" deal with National in Ilam.
This year I will see how things are closer to the election. However as things stand at present I probably will be voting for them.