On Monday, the same day as National released PREFU, the Opportunity Party announced their five bottom lines for coalition or confidence and supply after the election.
These five bottom lines speak to our values. They are lines we will not cross.
The five bottom lines,
- Bring down food prices, by intervening in the supermarket duopoly, with cross-party consensus.
- Clean up politics and rebuild public trust in politicians with a mandatory register and code of conduct for lobbyists, donation caps, and registered voter only donations.
- Fix the health system via a 10 year cross-party plan that includes wage increases for workers, and investment in primary and preventative care.
- Revive ocean health, an immediate ban on bottom trawling in at risk areas then phasing out. Working with fishes, quote owners and communities to build a sustainable blue economy long term.
- Restore climate credibility, recommitment of government to the Paris Agreement and protection of the Climate Commission.
As with the Greens, it’s worth listening to OP in their own words. Here’s Qiulae Wong’s announcement
It’s smart politics. There’s been criticism that the bottom lines are a lot of nothing. But OP can’t get the big, ballsy UBI/land value tax as a bottom line at this time, so they’ve drawn a line in the sand around values, while also making the bottom lines pragmatic and easy for coalition partners to say yes to.
This is Opportunity Party practicing what they preach: rebuilding public trust in politics. It looks odd because we are so used to Peters’ centrist grandiosity, power-mongering, and manipulating MMP while actively undermining other parties. Now Qiulae Wong arrives saying we are progressive centrists, will work with everyone, and we want to build long term stability. Finally some adults in the room. It reminds me of James Shaw (who did this from a left position).
The bottom lines are appropriate for a small party that’s never been in parliament let alone government. They’re not weak lines though, and in three years time OP will be able to say, this is what we achieved. If they form government with National, those five things are significant and important gains. If they form government with Labour and the Greens, they have a good basis for both negotiations (bottom lines aren’t the only lines) as well as working on common ground in the coming three years.
So why should OP be in parliament? I’m still voting Green, and still have serious critiques of core OP policy. But Qiulae Wong brings social intelligence to the centrist position, she would be an asset in parliament simply on those grounds.
The five bottom lines are designed to be said yes to by either Labour or National, but it’s an easier yes for Labour. The Te Tiriti position alone, a sixth bottom line, puts the hard word on National: you either push back against the excesses of your racist coalition partners, or you don’t get to govern again. OP have also said they won’t be in a government that has Peters as Foreign Minister. As someone who has long believed Peters monkey-wrenched the potential of MMP and better representative democracy, I have to admit to a certain amount of pre-emptory schadenfreude at the thought of Opportunity’s calm, steady, pro-social approach to politics putting Peters in his place.
OP will negotiate with the party that gets the biggest vote on election night. I didn’t listen to all the mainstream media Q&A, but I assume that means they will go first to the biggest vote party, and then to the second biggest vote party if the first one doesn’t work out. This is another reason to be talking up Labour if we want a centre left government.
Clean up politics looks a goodie.
It seems only a new party (or the Greens) can seriously sort out lobbying as they don't have the relationships, the 'scratched backs', the baggage that the other parties do.
Once that is sorted, move to state funded elections. No private money.
Clean up politics should include a referendum to change from MMP to STV so that those trying to game the system like billionaire Mowbray don't succeed.
They missed "Everyone who wants a pony should get one at some stage". And some other things from the earnest focus group of 13 year old private school girls who clearly wrote their bottom lines.
Honestly, it is complete pap. Lets look at it shall we?
Opportunity? Sound like the main opportunity they want is to smugly lecture everyone on their political virtue while drawing a fat taxpayer funded salary.
Or we could see this as an opportunity to get rid of atleast one of the loopy right s support parties And the left could see them as an opportunity to get a stable partner and an opportunity to use them to shift the Overton window
"earnest focus group of 13 year old private school girls " Like these people? https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/students-protesting-against-the-climate-crisis-across-nz/
Or, https://www.thepress.co.nz/nz-news/361085416/battle-survival-without-climate-change-action-12-year-old-warns
Or, Greta Thunberg in 2018 https://fridaysforfuture.org/
Sometimes our rangatahi have more vision, hope and motivation. They are the one we have taught, parented, grandparented, uncled, sung to. Their values are what we bequeathed, but somehow lost a vison for. They are our inheritors.
"Come mothers and fathers throughout the land, and don't criticise what you can't understand, your sons and your daughters are beyond your command, your old road is rapidly agin'. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend your hand, For the times they are a-changing."
I heard that song first when I was just a teen. It still packs the power of truth.
I remember reading about a 25 year old captain of sailing war ship, capability is blocked by longevity and silly old fools not getting out the way.
Soft and flabby bottoms.
I would not put her up against Winston in a coalition formation negotiation. She would be filletedinto fish and chips.
The "bottom lines" concept should firm your negotiating position to gain policy ground ie the things you want.
None of these do. Nor are any of them palatable to any party other than Labour and the Greens.
The exemplar agreement is the 2017 NZF+Labour agreement, which came with bounteous volumes of $$ and was the closest the public has seen to an execuitable set of policieis since the "credit card" of 1999 from the Clark campaign. They delivered on it as they said they would.
This political wetness does not augur well for a clean exit and government formation after November 3.
There won't be a clean government formation unless the current lot get a clear majority. We don't want that, obviously.
Time taken to form a government doesn't matter. There won't be a result until Nov 27. Negotiations will continue after that.
NZF are only going one way, so they are irrelevant. The coalition wins, or NZF are out of the picture. Nobody from the left is bringing them in.
Soft and flabby bottoms.
Sounds like a dreadful Queen tribute act on a rainy Tuesday night in Invercargill.
Ad is channelling Winston Peters.
I agree with Weka's OP and disagree with Ad and Sanc. (Though I won't be voting for Opp).
Much better to have a party that can work with the 3 left (ish) parties while staying out of government, or – worst case scenario – can limit a government of the Right from doing even further damage to our environment, society, and democratic process.
Qiulae Wong may be a novice but is she really going to say "Make me Foreign Minister and then you can forget all the bottom lines, I don't care now I've got my bauble"? I doubt it.
Given that National has ruled Opportunity out of contention, I think she would be justified in talking first to Labour, regardless of the result.
National could hold their nose and accept these, but how could ACT possibly agree?
OPP are the anti-NZ1st. Hard to see them in the same room.
If they really adhere to these bottom lines then they can't possibly join a right coalition.
For National it would be more appealing to join with Labour.
The Mt Albert debate last night hosted by Spinoff's Toby Manhire, streamed live on YouTube, was very good. The NZ 1st candidate and Wong are poles apart – chalk/cheese.
there's not scenario where a grand coalition of L/N will happen.
OP aren't talking about negotiating with NACTF, but with National. If OP hold the balance of power and the only way National can govern again is with them, do you think ACT and NZF would refuse and end up on the back benches?
this is exactly the centrist point and something Peters has done for decades, only he's a bullying power mongerer wherease OP want to build long term consensus and strong democracy.
Yeah it's a tough one , if I was in a polling booth today I'd go chippy, loved watching him back up the double douches of hosking and the herald fulla who's name I can't think of.
"OP aren't talking about negotiating with NACTF, but with National"
I think that's splitting hairs; everybody knows National cannot govern alone, so " a National Government" means the coalition that exists presently. OP could not reject National because of its appalling appendages, ACT and NZF. If that coalition could govern with OP's addition, OP must go with them, if National poll higher than Labour.
The hairs need to be split.
First,
OP have said they will talk first with the party that has the higher vote. They haven' said they will form government with the party with the highest vote. Why would they when that would lose them their centrist kingmaker power.
OP have already split the hairs. They won't support a government that has Peters as Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Te Tiriti has to be the basis of government. Wong said at around 7m40
[subtext, it's not in the five bottom lines as a single focus policy, but is nevertheless a bottom line]
Do you think ACT will agree to that? NZF? What will happen if they don't? How would ACT work in government with a bottom line of 'uphold and honour Te Tiriti'? NZF will go with which ever wind suits them, but it's not a given they will be in a Nat led government.
If National need OP to form govt, it can form a minority govt with them that excludes ACT and/or NZF if it has the numbers. The only way to block that would be for ACT or NZF to offer C/S to Labour, but in that case why wouldn't OP? Then it becomes a matter of who gives OP the best deal, Labour or National. Who do you think would? OP's bottom lines are much more natural fit with the left than the right.
Bear in mind that National would have to reneg on its pre-election promise ruling out OP as well.
If the left can't form government because it doesn't have the numbers, which RW coalition would you prefer?
Nat/OP
Nat/OP/ACT
Nat/OP/NZF
Nat/OP/ACT/NZF
I'm not arguing here that OP will choose Labour. They're a centrist party who will do what works for them. I'm saying the hair splitting matters in this election probably more than any other in recent decades.
"OP have already split the hairs. They won't support a government that has Peters as Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Te Tiriti has to be the basis of government. Wong said at around 7m40"
They will. Peters' will laugh them out of the House with that demand. They will fold if it comes down to that. It's a naive bottom-line anyway. Going up against Peters was a stupid thing to do.
ACT will work around their demand re: Te Tiriti; re-word their intentions, agree to disagree etc. Too smart, plus backed by Luxon/National. We all saw how ACT manipulated Luxon over the Treaty-relate stuff this term; OP have no experience at all in negotiating such matters.
" How would ACT work in government with a bottom line of 'uphold and honour Te Tiriti'?"
It will be OP that will "up hold and honour Te Tiriti, the rest of them will do so "when appropriate" – if needed, they'll break that commitment, or at least bend it so far that it's null.
"If National need OP to form govt, it can form a minority govt with them that excludes ACT and/or NZF if it has the numbers."
No chance! Peters & Seymour have got far more power than to be subject to Luxon's whims! The connections between those parties go deep into industry and wealthy backers – it is they who will decide who National goes with. ACT & NZF will NOT be pushed aside in favour of those young whipper-snappers!
"If the left can't form government because it doesn't have the numbers, which RW coalition would you prefer?
Nat/OP
Nat/OP/ACT
Nat/OP/NZF
Nat/OP/ACT/NZF"
Makes no difference. OP's bottom-lines mean they will be powerless if it comes to the last option – either they abandon their bottom-lines or they sit on the cross-benches, should they go over 5%.
If you can't tell the difference between Nat/OP govt and the other configurations, I'm not sure your judgement on the rest of the comment can be taken seriously.
Coalition agreements are formal written documents. If one or other party breaks the agreement, the agreement is broken.
It's not like OP have been on a desert island, they can see how coalitions have been done.
Iain Galloway-Lees was in parliament for 4 terms, that's 4 elections.
again, I'm not saying vote OP. I'm saying these are the pragmatics of the situation for the left.
At the moment, on current polling trends, there is no way for the left to form government without OP.
That might change. But if we slag them off for the next 4 weeks and they drop below 5% and that gives the election to NACTF, that would be terrible.
It sounds as though you firmly believe that OP are vital to this election.
"At the moment, on current polling trends, there is no way for the left to form government without OP."
"current polling trends"
Wraiths, phantasms, ghosts & vapours.
Pinning our hopes on the weakest link is not sound strategy. Full commitment to strengthening our own teams, is.
And..Aye. That is it summed.
Labour AND Green for a Fairer Future NZ !
depends on what you mean by vital. I would use the term critical instead, as in they are core to who gets to form govt.
OP are polling above 5%. They may be kingmaker. We have no control over that, apart from actively campaigning against them, and that is a risk because it might stop the left forming govt.
What I just said is not hard to understand.
I'm not pinning my hopes on OP. I'm reading the room. My hopes are pinned on a high GP vote, I'm just not convinced it will be enough.
I'm not willing to pin my hopes on mythical ideas that polling doesn't count or factor in elections.
My ideal scenario is L/G with more Green MPs, and if necessary C/S from TPM or OP, but preference is OP on cross benches so they can get some experience.
I have a massive preference for OP over NZF as the dominant centrist party. Worse is OP under 5% and Peters holding the balance of power.
"… apart from actively campaigning against them…"
Who's "actively campaigning against them"?
Why are you warning Standardistas not to talk that way? Do you think we are influencing … anything?
Crikey, I hope we are influencing people. What is your theory of grass roots change if not individuals working together and networking. When people talk a home, at work, at the BBQ about politics, people influence each other. Same online.
I had this argument on twitter recently and people with bigger follower accounts than mine were saying what they said don’t have an impact. Very strange.
I can tell you this, more people read TS than comment. By quite some margin.
"I'm not willing to pin my hopes on mythical ideas that polling doesn't count or factor in elections."
Me neither but that's not what I'm saying. It's too hard/too speculative to base behaviour on polls in the present environment. Dig deeper, trust your deeper-self and commit to the path you believe is best. Jiggery-pokery will deflate your ballon-of-power 🙂
"… But if we slag them off for the next 4 weeks and they drop below 5% and that gives the election to NACTF, that would be terrible."
Debate here that challenges OP will NOT cause them to drop below 5%.
that's very reductionist
What do you mean/please explain 🙂
"If you can't tell the difference between Nat/OP govt and the other configurations, I'm not sure your judgement on the rest of the comment can be taken seriously."
That's a slight.
I wrote it "makes no difference", not that there is no difference. Poisons come in different flavours.
"It's not like OP have been on a desert island, they can see how coalitions have been done."
Okay, I'll take the bait: where have they been then?
"Iain Galloway-Lees was in parliament for 4 terms, that's 4 elections."
Can you link to media that addresses his negotiating abilities?
let me put it another way. Would NZ be better off with Nat/OP or NACTF/OP?
Because for those of us whose lives have been destroyed by the current govt, it's not a nice to have or even an activist priority. It's very easy for me to prioritise different coalition constructions and I found the dismissal of the importance of that odd, and consider it probably based in privilege, similar to lefties slagging of Labour who will still be ok whatever the result in November.
"… based in privilege…"
It gets worse!
I found wikipedia useful for understand who different OP people are and their experience.
There is legit critique about OP's experience or lack of and what that might mean. But I thought your comments were more based in antipathy rather than evidence.
Thumbs up!
In any case, why do we talk about a "Kingmaker" rather than a "Queenmaker"?
I agree, but the two Chrises might not. The whole thing is ridiculous, we don't even elect a PM and neither do coalition partners.
Now we are in "Wonderland" territory.
At last!
The bottom lines are fine.
It's funny as a lefty, seeing people who have been ripping their hair out for over a decade about the need for a centerist party and a party that can work with both sides instead of NZf, but the second one becomes viable those same people attack it relentlessly. A lot of the so called "centerists" and "adults in the room" are just contrarians, who oppose everything to sound intelligent.
Like weka I actually need a left wing govt, it's life or death for kiwis, the govt has destroyed the health service, my dad was diagnosed with kidney cancer in 2024, but they didn't even inform him or his gp for six months, he then had to wait another six -eight months for surgery which was supposed to just be removing part of the one kidney, but they waited so long the cancer spread so the whole kidney and part of the other one had to go, and now he's waited 16 months for prostate cancer treatment, denied any form of govt compensation.
This govts mass lay offs of admin staff refusal to hire nurses and keep specialists is KILLING our people.
I'm all in on Top, i REALLY want to vote for the Greens but will likely strategically vote TOP because if there's no TOP there's no chance of a left wing govt and if this govt gets elected more and more of our people will die from treatable illnesses, freeze to death on our streets, starve or be denied welfare.
If you're on the left or liberal in anyway , for the next six weeks stop attacking TOP they aren't the enemy, we actually need them, stop attacking the greens or tpm buying into the media tribalist bullshit and as hard as it is, stop hating labour for being gutless and weak for six weeks.
The enemy is national, if the choice is between lab/green/top/tpm or nat/NZf/act the choice is f**king simple.
If top do get into parliament and some how go into coalition with the right THEN we can absolutely trash them, I will be furious but still won't regret strategically voting for them because there is no path to a non national govt without Top in any current polls and the only way the current coalition definitely gets reelected is if top doesn't make the threshold.
Top not getting over 5% only benefits the right so we should all hope it does, getting rid of this govt (or severely neutering it) is life and death for many kiwis
too many stories like your Dad's. The damage is immeasurable.
Good points about strategy in voting.
Thing about OP going with National, the only scenario I can see where that might happen is if National agree to their bottom lines and National had more votes than Labour.
It's a tricky situation for OP.
If they refuse to go with Nat and go with Lab instead, they will be attacked for that, although they have said they will talk with the largest party not necessarily form govt with them
If they can't support L/G, but refuse Nat and force another election, it's likely they wouldn't make it back in. I haven't done the numbers to see if this scenario is possible (refuse Nat but L/G/TPM don't have enough).
If National got more votes than Labour, how could OP turn them down – they've said they could work with them – they'd be seen to have been lying.
They could turn them down if National won't or can't meet their bottom lines. For instance ACT refuse to honour the treaty.
OP have said they will talk first with the party with the highest vote. They haven't said they will form govt with the party with the highest vote.
National will accomodate OP's bottom lines, or at least appear to. ACT will twist the meaning of any agreement. Luxon will allow that to happen. Their negotiators/wormtongues, Key, English et al. are too smart for the OP newbies.
If OP "talk" with National first, they will go with them and re-form this hideous government.
I agree OP are inexperienced. Except for Iain Galloway Lees of course.
What do you base this assessment on?
Any other Centrist party (or at least not actively right or left aligned) has been happy to negotiate with both major blocs following an election. There have been times where this has been pro forma (one side can't form a government – even with the Centrist party). But certainly United Future and NZF have negotiated with both sides for the best deal. Peters did so very effectively in 2017.
If National has the most votes, it is very likely that ACT and NZF will have done well also, therefore, while OP will be unlikely to be in a position to "swing it" for the Right, they will not be able to do so withoutACT and NZF. That means they will have to kowtow to Peters and Seymour. That means, they will have no power of influence. Sure, the cross-benches, but given the opportunity to be in Government, they would not choose to sit in-between, imo. Their objective is to get into government.
If they hold the balance of power, then they will certainly be negotiating with both parties – as Peters did in 2017.
I don't see anything supporting your contention that if they negotiate with National, they will automatically choose National.
Yes, TOP explicitly want to be on government – but 'balance of power' means that they get to choose which government it will be.
If they enter into negotiations with National/Right they will be monstered/shepherded into supporting another round of neoliberal control politics. Can you not see this?
They will not have the option of "choosing which government it will be" – you must be naive to think so.
They are inexperienced. They will not be able to withstand the pressure that will come from the Rightwing and well acquiesce to their demands.
Do you not comprehend what 'balance of power' means?
It is where neither the left nor the right blocs can form a government without TOP.
*If* TOP are in that position after the election, they are in a position to negotiate the best outcome (from their perspective) that they can – with both parties.
They then choose which one to go with – and therefore who will be in government.
Just as Peters did in 2017.
I think it's you that doesn't comprehend, Belladonna , with all due respect. OP will not get to choose, no matter how obvious that might seem to you. They will be admitted/absorbed into the existing power/money-based system that is in place now. The Great Machine that is in place now, with National/Act & NZF will. "guide" them to the best outcome for all 🙂
Why?
They can choose Labour. Why do you assume they have no agency?
This seems a rather one-eyed assumption, based on your dislike of them, rather than a rational analysis based on anything the party has said.
I have no difficulty at all understanding the commonly-held idea that OP have agency and can choose their (and our) fate, I just don't think it applies to these particular circumstances. The stakes are too high for the present Government to allow a newby party to decide the fate of the programme the National, ACT and NZ First parties have developed, with the help of all of the monied players, industrial and individual, that have put them there in the first place.
The only way the Left can take over as Government is for Labour to win more votes than National, for the Greens to do especially well (as I believe they will), for Te Pati Māori's voting-ploy to succeed (I believe it will) and for OP to get over 5% (they might) and talk to Labour in the first instance.
Being involved in talks with Luxon, Seymour and Peters and their behind-the-scenes crew would mean OP would have no chance of expressing their agency, imo.
Note: I don't "dislike them" as you wrote. They present well and have reasonable ideas, in the main. I certainly do dislike the coalition parties.
From my perspective modern centrism like what OP is purporting to be is a neoliberal variant that only works to pull traditional left parties closer to the right. This is the legacy of Thatcher and eventually Blairs Third Way nonsense that sold out working people to the myth of the middle class and can only benefit the right.
There are really only two kinds of voters. Those that are paid salaries and wages or are sole traders that rely on contract work provided by bigger companies, and those that own or benefit directly from those companies as owners or as share holders.
The left represents those in the first group that receive payment as wages/salaries. The right represent the other group. There should not be a centre.
The problem the right have is that there are fewer of them and so they need to create an aspirational allusion that any one can be like them to draw working people away from their roots and have them vote against their own best interests. This ramped up in the 80's and 90's and is the insidiousness of neoliberalism and the creation of this mythical centre that can only ever benefit those that are already doing okay – the sorted, and this is where OP sit on the spectrum.
By removing the UBI/Land Tax from their bottom line and reducing those bottom line to five teal coloured nods to the environment and reforms of the political system they have opened the door to a Nat/ACT/OP government.
If you are a working New Zealander, the owner of a small to medium business or retired you owe it to your self and those like you to vote Green or Labour and to ignore the lure of OP.
If your analysis about the two types of voter were correct, we would never have had a right aligned government. Since there are more employees than employers.
The fact that we have the current government tells us that your theory about voters is wishful thinking, rather than reality.
wouldn't that be explained in the fourth paragraph where I start "The problem the right have is that there are fewer of them and so they need to create an aspirational allusion…"
Aspirational illusions don't result in votes. If this one has lasted for over 40 years – there must be something in it, other than illusion.
I think your analysis needs to go back to the drawing board.
Well, Luxon did say "go back to the drawing board as a priority to work with the farming sector", and "It's a case of slower to go faster."
Madoff kept his Ponzi scheme going for at least 30 years. “Three great forces rule the world: stupidity, fear and greed.” – Einstein
https://www.wackernagel.info/post/overshoot-ecological-ponzi-scheme
Perhaps CEO Luxon and his caucus believe that more RONS will keep ecological overshoot at bay. As for NZF and ACT…
Which has nothing to do with the OPs point.
Do you believe that there is a natural division of political support between the left (employees/sole-contractors/small business owners) and the right (employers/shareholders)?
And, if so, how do you account for the fact that we have regularly had a centre-right government over the last century, while employers/shareholders have only been a tiny minority of the population.
One of TOPs bottom lines, clearly stated in weka's OP, is "Restore climate credibility, recommitment of government to the Paris Agreement and protection of the Climate Commission." NZF and ACT are intent on destroying 'clean green' New Zealand's 'climate credibility', and CEO Luxon also has a bit of a credibility gap/chasm.
Ta B. I believe there’s a degree of division along the lines you describe, although I can't quantify it and I've been wrong before.
We know that Peters and Seymour are going to gang bang this country if the election puts them in a position where they can.
Wong just might be the one to save us from this cruel fate. We don't know for sure, but sounds promising.