Written By:
- Date published:
10:55 am, June 14th, 2026 - 159 comments
Categories: election 2026, greens, labour, TOPS -
Tags:
So The Opportunity Party is throwing everything into winning the Mt Albert seat. Their rationale is if they get an electorate seat they get a lifeline into Parliament.
They have an interesting policy mix.
Arguably their policy positions are close to the Greens and to the left of Labour. Their slogan is “Unity, Innovation, Nature”.
Their specific policy positions are very progressive. For instance:
I must say this is an impressive list of policies, UBI, increased support for community preschools and pay for teachers, improved water quality, increased funding for justice and more therapeutic treatment of young people and drug addicts, more housing, increased urgent action on on climate change, a limit on political donations, honouring Te Tiriti and increased devolution particularly in health and justice, larger marine reserve areas and restored coastal habitat, and a significant reduction in carbon emissions by boosting renewable energy and ringfencing Government profits from power generation into renewable energy investments.
I find my head nodding as I read this list.
But I wonder who is the Opportunity Party and why should good lefties support them?
My first response is that these are important issues, especially climate change. But where have these people been in the last 20 years? Why haven’t they already joined Labour or the Greens to push hard on these issues?
And my second response is why are they claiming that they can work with any party including National? This list of policies is an anathema to what National has done over the past two and a half years.
If they were a Teal like party they would be targeting National or right held seats in the inner city and forcint the right either to get with the game or face oblivion as their support base is reduced to a climate change denying rump.
The motivation is often shown by who the backers are.
Who are their backers?
Recent large donations have been received from Ian Kuperus who is a board member, Alajamber Limited, a start up incubator company, Phillip Mills who supports all things progressive, Matthew O’Connor and Brian Cartmell who donated the party $100,000.
This last donation is interesting because Cartmell has also donated about half a million dollars to National, Act and NZ First over the past few years. Strangely the donations to the other parties do not appear in the Elections website.
Cartmell is an interesting character, an American who has relocated to Queenstown and someone who was an early adopter of Bitcoin. He currently wants to invest in “innovative startups that challenge existing boundaries in space, energy, agritech, advanced transportation, artificial intelligence, and other transformative technologies”.
And looking at Cartmell’s twitter feed he looks like a Elon Musk Fan boy, not someone who is concerned about the environment.
Some progressives will be tempted to support Top. Can I urge you to resist the urge?
There are two possible scenarios. If they do not cross the threshold or win a seat then progressive votes will be rendered ineffective. If they do cross the threshold or win a seat then there is no guarantee that they will support the left. Their naievity in thinking they can meaningfully negotiate with National is clear.
As for running for Mount Albert again I would have to question the strategy. The Greens are already making a run for the seat and Labour’s core vote is pretty solid. I cannot see TOP having any chance of winning. In a worst case scenario they may let National through although this is unlikely.
TOP is an interesting concept but a dangerous one. Can I urge progressives to avoid them. I can pretty confidently say that if you support their policies then a vote for them will lessen the chances of those policies being enacted.
I'd say the opposite, give them your party vote, if you live in Mount Albert give them your candidate vote. To have another party in parliamnet actually willing to put forward ideas and policies that represent actual structual change is a good thing. If they dont get votes their most interesting policies will be dead in the water.
You would say that Crickle with your centre-Right leanings.
Any party that says it will potentially go into coalition with the 3 stooges Luxon/Peters/Seymour should be avoided like the plague, for both party and candidate vote.
And that is TOP.
Given that they are polling around 3% it would also be a wasted vote.
Except it's not progressive. It's neoliberal centrism. Think of them as Millenial centrists, orthogonal to the traditional L/R spectrum rather than sitting between L/R like Peters or Dunne. They have modern ideas around things like climate and UBI are in the context of neoliberalism.
The land tax is terrible because it taxes yearly people who own a home irrespective of their asset and income wealth. Someone who owns a home or land but has little incoe gets screwed. Think beneficiaries, Māori, disabled people, elderly. What should be taxed is capital gains.
Their response to this is to accrue the debt and have it paid when the land/home is sold. This affects the next generation. TOP's idea is that everyone will be alright because UBI and KS, and they seem quite ignorant about the underclass.
Taxing land the TOP also disrupts the mana of the land on top of all the other insults the land has to bear at this point in history.
Their UBI policy is still hugely problematic because it is based on the premise that people will work to earn additional wages/salary to have a liveable income. They pay lip service when challenged on what would happen to people who cannot work, but this imo is very dangerous. They want to dismantle welfare. National would love to have them as coalition partners.
Compare to the Greens' Guaranteed Minimum Income policy, which has a UBI with welfare bolted on. That's because the Greens started with people's wellbeing, and TOP starting with teh economy and assumed trickle down.
The problem with a land value tax is that we have one already (strongly implying it doesn't do the things it is claimed to do). Rates, at least the land value part (roughly 50%) of the rates assessment are an effective land value tax already. So your not going to get different market outcomes (like property prices staying down any better) by adding a land value tax anyway.
Would say if there is a problem with home owner debt then the Green's wealth tax probably suffers from similar criticisms. There will definitely be cases of people paying the Green's wealth tax when their property is sold or against their estate. I still support the wealth tax policy, but expect there to be a few stories of people who are using deferment provisions where these stories make the tax look unfair (at least as it gets reported in the media).
I don't consider UBI a progressive policy as there is no UBI level the government would ever pay at where working becomes optional, so it's basically going to be set at a level wherec, everybody is expected to work as well who actually depends on it. That's obviously unacceptable for people who can't work. The only way a UBI policy can be progressive is as an income top up (e.g as a GMI). The Green's policy is good there even if there is a way it's just making the internal assessments of need at MSD an explicit part of govt policy.
I never quite got the idea that even a CGT would lower house prices. If people can still make money why would they not?
Agreed. Shangreah and I had this out quite a number of times. The main difference is that TOP's plan affects all landowners from zero dollar and the tax is on land valuation yearly. The Greens' policy would only kick in on freehold capital over the first $1m for a single person. I think this threshold would rise over time.
The Greens policy and how it affects people with a high value home but not otherwise wealthy is still a problem, but it's a different order of problem.
Rates is not a tax inasmuch as they are an apportionment of expenses incurred by local authorities. But central governments also need funding and land tax is one form of tax that may be used for that purpose. After all, the more land tax we pay the less income tax taxpayers may need to pay.
Why would a UBI policy have to be progressive for it to be valid. A progressive tax is one in which the rate paid depends on the amount on which it is based. Such a basis would be silly for a UBI.
Lol.
Go look up the "Local Government (Rating) Act 2002" if you're in any way unclear that rates are a tax.
They may be deemed a "tax" for the purposes of the Act, but that doesn't make them a tax. The IRD has no interest in them, except as a possible deduction from income.
Lol.
Good idea, you should really recommend TOPs new policy of IRD collecting rates.
I wasn't aware they had such a policy.
The IRD will never have any interest in rates – since they are a local government tax, rather than a central government one. IRD only has a mandate for managing the latter.
So gifting unearned income is okay?
why would you say that? In the Greens' policy afaik it would be taxed above a certain amount.
Because inheritances received are gifts, they are unearned income.
The difference between the taxed and untaxed value of wealth being gifted is likely substantial and would benefit recipients with even more unearned income.
yes, I know. If you are asking me if I think inheritances should be taxed. I do.
But you asked if I thought inheriting money is ok. I do. I just think it should be taxed.
tbh, I don't know what you are saying.
My point earlier was that expecting elderly people to accrue debt over many years, means their family is deprived of that money when they die. This is a problem for people who have little who would otherwise inherit.
This affects the next generation.
So?
The amount an heir is to be gifted, an heir's future unearned income, should have no part in influencing tax policy.
why not?
Because there's more than enough evidence to support the fact that intergenerational wealth transfers contribute to growing inequity.
In NZ those transfers sans any form of estate or death tax are received as unearned income and the notion that tax policy should advantage recipients of unearned income is obscene.
I already said an inheritance tax is necessary.
Yes, there are huge problems with wealth transfer. I'd like you to consider families who have wealth simply off the back of the property boom and not because they are otherwise wealthy, and they will leave that to their kids who have no other way to afford to buy a house. TOP's land tax monkey wrenches that.
Special pleading for beneficiaries of one of the systemic drivers of inequity. Really?
that was a self serving selective quote.
To clarify, are you saying that all people who own a house are wealthy?
And there is no inequity in taxing those people on the land value annually even if they can’t afford to pay it?
Compared to those don't own their own home, yes, they are wealthy.
If you can't afford to live there, go and live somewhere you can afford to live. Piss, or get off the pot.
An estate isn't necessarily "unearned". It may have come about as the result of hard work; work on which a decent dollop of tax has already been paid.
I don't think anyone with property now paid for that wealth through wages. It came about from the property boom. If it was about wages and ahrd work, we'd all still be able to afford a home.
Dividends are usually, though not always, paid from productive effort.
But not the owner of the shares’ productive effort. Dividends are the payoff for a capital investment in the business. You give them money (which they spend on developing/running the business), they give you a share of the profit they make.
So, while someone is doing a lot of productive effort in this process – it's likely to be the people at the coalface, not the people owning the shares.
So, while someone is doing a lot of productive effort in this process – it's likely to be the people at the coalface, not the people owning the shares.
I don't think that that makes a difference, since shareholders are effectively part of the companies in which they invest – a bit like "sleeping" partners in a partnership.
It's not the estate that's unearned, it's the gift received that's unearned.
And if an inheritance is payback for whatever, then it's not a gift, its earned income, and earned income is taxable.
So, to turn this around to affect a different group of society. Homeless people in Auckland demonstrably can't afford to live there. Should they all be shipped off to "live somewhere you can afford to live"?
Good question, not to mention homeless Kiwis living outside Auckland. Our nACTf CoC has a ‘new’ plan to 'fix' the inconvenient problem of homelessness.
A(t)las, not everyone can discern the tiny differences between deserving asset-rich, income-poor Kiwis, and homeless asset-poor, income-poor Kiwis.
Move-On !
And that's related to advantaging one particular group, those fortunate enough to be the recipients of intergenarational gifts of wealth, how?
And if an inheritance is payback for whatever, then it's not a gift, its earned income, and earned income is taxable.
It's a transfer payment rather than income since it does not increase the community's wealth; it merely transfers part of that wealth to another person. Whilst I'm not actually opposed to death duties, there are some who, for those reasons, might be opposed, so we need clarity when we discuss these matters.
Taxing land the TOP also disrupts the mana of the land on top of all the other insults the land has to bear at this point in history.
Oh. Really? How come?
Their UBI policy is still hugely problematic because it is based on the premise that people will work to earn additional wages/salary to have a liveable income. They pay lip service when challenged on what would happen to people who cannot work,
The UBI and the question of what happens to people who cannot work are separate issues. As a society we still have an obligation to support those who cannot work, even if a UBI is in place.
A UBI is based on the proposition that an economy generates more income than represented by our personal contributions – mostly contributions by our forebears. A UBI is an attempt to distribute the value of those contributions equally. It also provides freedom: one cannot be completely free if tied to a job. A UBI is there to provide other options.
A good reference is Guy Standings' book: Basic Income, a guide for the open minded. It should be available in the library (I know it's avaible in the Wellington Central Library)
When we treat land as a commodity and/or investment unit, we separate ourselves from the land and nature on which we are utterly dependent. That's how we end up with the climate and ecological crises, polluted rivers and air, plastics in our blood.
When we treat land as a commodity and/or investment unit, we separate ourselves from the land and nature on which we are utterly dependent. That's how we end up with the climate and ecological crises, polluted rivers and air, plastics in our blood
This sounds to me like waffle, but even if it's true in some sense, what has it got to do land tax.
I like what you are saying here about our forebears and income for society being more than individual wages. Thanks for the reference.
The issue I have with TOP's policy is they want to get rid of welfare and they treat disabled and other people who can't work as an afterthought. They should have policy on this by now.
The issue I have with TOP's policy is they want to get rid of welfare and they treat disabled and other people who can't work as an afterthought. They should have policy on this by now.
Without any evidence, you are accusing them of not wanting to meet their obligations, even before they have made it into parliament.
Besides, if they get into government it will be in coalition with some other party or parties.
We've had this conversation before. I've written a number of posts over the years on their UBI/welfare policies. How is that not evidence?
It's not that they don't want to meet their obligations, it's that they literally don't have any policy on beneficiaries this year.
By policy, I mean costings and plans, not vague hand waves we are supposed to take as reassurance.
Mike sh is big time promo TOP!
here you go, TOP's tax policy where it mentions disability
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KgTXUgjVipAA7EcDas-EJmOr6ZkeCf9B/view
Here's the tweets I wrote based on that from mid May.
https://x.com/wekatweets/status/2055092111587037305
You can see TOP's response in replies to that link.
Disability is mentioned in the linked policy statement. I have been trying to copy and paste it, but the edit function doesn't seem to work in this instance.
However, it's on page 5.
yes the word occurs 5 times in the document, but their actual policy is very vague. They cap disability allowance at $6,000 per year. This is frankly bizarre. What if someone has higher costs?
the main problem I have is the lack of explanation.
If this is your reason why we shouldn't vote TOP then I think you are clutching at straws. TOP won't be able to get its UBI policy across the line unless a major party agrees to it; that party would have its own ideas of what form a UBI policy should take, and the final form of the legislation will appear only after extensive negotiation. The $6,000 is probably just a "stab in the dark" on TOP's part. I guess they felt they had to mention some figure.
PS: I think TOP's land tax at 1.75% is somewhat on the high side. Living in Wellington where land values are reasonably high, I think my wife and I may be slightly worse off with that percentage, though it would not stop me voting TOP.
The land tax percentage they were looking for in 2023 was, I think, 0,75%
If you download the PDF you should be able to copy and paste from that.
I didn't think of that, but I really only wanted an excerpt.
They are primarily libertarians. The difference from ACT is that they are not neo-liberal. They advocate for everyone paying their way, and not for handouts for the rich and externalising risks and costs onto everyone else.
However they are not necessarily friends of the left. In parliament they could well support National, even if it would be hard for them to work with ACT. Even though their policies look green (at least in comparison to the current government) they would take a "pragmatic" view which could reduce some protections.
It is good to have them in the conversation. Talking about radical change to the tax system is a good thing. Persuade your less progressive friends to vote for them instead of National or ACT. But if you really want change that works for the rest of us voter Green or Maori.
It doesn't matter what they say – if they enable a National-led government, they've enabled another National-led government.
Wake up, my brothers & sisters!
🙂
TOP have two votes in our house. Both switching from the right. Time will tell if it's a wasted vote. Happy to take a gamble. They're either gone pull Nats to centre and hopefully negate NZF (as much as I like their mining focus) . Or if its a left block they might sharpen labour's woeful CGT and negate TPM or soften greens
"They're either gone pull Nats to centre and hopefully negate NZF"
Fat chance – they're newbies and would get eaten in any negotiation.
Imagine pitting yourself against Winston and hoping to negate NZF.
Not going to happen.
I don't think they will coalesce with either party. They will probably just provide a C&S agreement to one or other of the major parties. Labour seems the more likely.
A new party, turning down the Opportunity to be in Government?
Not likely.
And what would their supporters think and do, knowing their team won't take the … opportunity they've given them??
Nah.
Nah
Yeah!
Pretty guttural, that response!
Succinct, and to the point.
Paula Bennett on crack.
If their policies are that good maybe it's time the Greens were given a run for their money. Go right ahead and make it a contest of policy.
I suspect the Greens are too well funded and have strong electoral bases to lose their political patch to Opportunities.
Opportunities are getting their run like James Shaw did on ZB.
They'll fade now that National is getting its shit together again.
"They'll fade now that National is getting its shit together again."
Nicola Willis lost hers today.
As ever, IMO Ad never misses a chance to knife the Greens.
When really a united Red and Green are the only LEFT alternative to NACT1…..unless you are blue green. Which is a whole other story…..
I think ad likes, not to knife the Greens, but instead to poke the borak at, or needle The Green Party (and their supporters), presumably in the belief that we'll be galvanised into action 🙂
Well….having been around here for quite a while….and seen, thats my take.
Check out what is proposed for National Superannuation.
the proposal is to repeal it, replace it with the much lower GMI and
add a top up to current levels. However the top up is not included in their costings.
Worrying.
The original plan for the top-up when TOP was founded was to limit it to current superannuitants and people who were close to 65, and exhaust the Super fund to pay for it.
The current plan references increased Kiwisaver contributions and balances, and there's an oblique reference to means testing:
Nothing about the Super fund but it could be used to smooth over expenditure while transitioning to a future model.
Honouring the treaty means policies which accelerate the reckless constitutional project of the Mãori State. That project will strip TOP of constitutional authority as a governing party. This position hardly seems to fit alongside other TOP policy promises. In fact it looks like TOP is attempting NZF-like to catch a wave of popular hysteria. But the policy will fit seamlessly with Labour’s undeclared He Pua Pua ambitions (Chippy’s wet dream) and the Greens’ separatist social justice agenda.
My goodness, I’m sounding like a conservative. I will vote for TOP if their treaty policy honours the 1840 contract, not today’s radically weaponised version.
[I’m letting this through because it’s hilarious in so many ways – comedy gold! – Incognito]
"My goodness…"
QFT
Disagree with you about not voting for them. The Greens are beyond redemption (especially since the departure of James Shaw), and I hope that Opportunity will replace them as a Coalition partner with Labour. And I wouldn't view them as a Coalition partner with National with total horror, especially if this is at the expense of ACT and Winston. Believe in the value of your vote, and if you think Opportunity is best, go for them. The latest polls should encourage you, they do me!
The Greens' 10% is getting firmer now. Nothing to worry that base.
Disagree, although I too lament the May 2024 departure of Shaw from Parliament. The Green Party will attract at least 10% of party votes in November (mine included), so even in the very unlikely event that they lose all three of their current electorate seats, they will continue to advocate for their principles in Parliament.
Imho, the "beyond redemption" award goes to MPs from the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers party. Their leader and role model, the thin-skinned Seymour, has fun dishing out 'derangement syndrome' diagnoses, but he can't take it.
Or have us lefties got ACT all wrong? Does Hoggard have a dream, that one day all farmers will be free – to benefit from a "reliable, year-round pipeline of workers"?
With the departure of Sage and the likely cull of Steve Abel, there's not an experienced conservationist left in the Green Party.
That is the magic of Opportunities to the sympathetic hundreds of thousands of Forest&Bird supporters looking for a voting home.
The list ranking of Abel is mind boggling. Makes me wonder if there are internal issues that haven't been made public (not necessarily about Abel)
Even though they're weak on it they're still getting my vote this time.
Labour needs a very strong partner.
A partner who advertises, "I'll go either way"?
Curious…
Mercurio, I think/hope Ad means that the Green Party will get his vote this time.
"Curious" ? IMO : Not really. With this kind of white-anting BS.
All Ad is doing there is pointing out that without Forest and Bird types in the Greens, Forest and Bird supporters are less likely to vote Green and more likely to vote TOP. Hardly a controversial opinion, actually a useful opinion, one that the left should be getting to grips with.
Can't see how this is anything like white anting either.
Yea. IMO you've been doing it for a while to the Greens (In particular Chloe..)
So, do you have an explanation of why Abel (a sitting MP, with a long list of conservation credentials) has been dropped down to a likely unwinnable place on the party list?
"…there's not an experienced conservationist left in the Green Party…."
Ad, please list the experienced conservationists in the Opportunities Party, for the sake of balance and fairness.
In case you dont get a reply….I found
I wonder how Kayla juggles this? As an Environment centrist and all…
https://www.greens.org.nz/candidates_2026
https://vote.nz/
Is Abel's 12th place on the Green party list likely to result in his "cull"? On current polling, it seems unlikely that the Green's vote share will drop by more than 2% from their 2023 election showing, and that's the drop needed for Abel to miss out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2026_New_Zealand_general_election
I think this analysis misses the more interesting question.
The question is not really whether TOP should exist. In a proportional system, parties emerge where voters perceive an unoccupied political space.
The more interesting question is what space TOP is trying to occupy, and why that space exists in the first place.
To me, TOP looks like a symptom of leakage in the traditional party system rather than a rupture. National still leads the right, and Labour still leads the centre-left, but neither major party fully contains the voters who might once have sat comfortably inside those blocs.
On the right, ACT and NZ First have shown that traditional National politics no longer fully resonates with its own base. On the left, the Greens occupy important ground, but their association with Labour, and their movement toward the activist edge of progressive politics, may cap their appeal among some older liberal, environmental, reform-minded voters.
That leaves a possible space for voters who are climate-serious, housing-serious, pro-reform, socially liberal, and frustrated with the status quo, but who do not feel fully at home with either National/ACT/NZF or Labour/Green politics.
That is the space TOP appears to be testing.
The strategic question for the left should not be “how dare TOP exist?” It should be: why would voters attracted to climate action, land tax, housing reform, political transparency, and institutional renewal not see a Labour-led government as the obvious vehicle for those things?
I struggle to see a National/ACT/TOP arrangement delivering many of TOP’s more interesting policies. ACT would surely resist land tax, stronger climate action, a more generous social safety net, and much of TOP’s institutional reform agenda. National might absorb some of the language, but likely dilute the substance.
So rather than treating TOP as a moral threat or a spoiler, the centre-left should be asking how to make itself the better coalition home for that reformist space.
TOP is not the cause of fragmentation. It is evidence that some voters believe there is a gap. If the left wants those voters, it needs to understand the gap rather than simply complain that someone else is trying to fill it.
That is the space TOP appears to be testing.
I think you are misunderstanding TOP. Its flagship policy is a UBI (though they call it a "citizens' income"). The constituency for this is the so called precariat, which is said to be a growing cohort politically – growing in the UK according to Guy Standing (who coined the term), and probably in other countries as well.
Parties that wish to get into parliament usually put forward policies on other issues as well, though I don't think their policy on climate change is particularly interesting.
I’m not convinced TOP’s appeal is mainly to the precariat.
My impression from the polling and public discourse so far, is that a lot of its support comes from educated, reform-minded, relatively comfortable voters who might once have felt at home with the Greens, but no longer quite do.
I’m not convinced TOP’s appeal is mainly to the precariat.
The thought of receiving a UBI must be engendering some support.
Marx believed that the workers needed to become conscious of themselves as a class. Perhaps the precariat needs to do the same.
Over
Thinking.
It's a thing.
Considering TOP's annual land value tax policy, why would homeowners (with or without a mortgage) and prospective homeowners (particularly those who would require a mortgage) be motivated to vote for TOP? This land tax would amount to at least several thousand dollars to be paid each year. It seems TOP want most NZers to be renters, with property owned by the wealthy few who could afford land tax.
TOP's claim that they could work with the Coalition parties doesn't make sense, as their policies in no way align with those of the Coalition.
As a homeowner with two properties and mortgages on both, I'm actually considering voting for TOP.
Not because I particularly enjoy the prospect of paying more tax, but because they are at least attempting to address some of the structural problems that seem to be getting worse regardless of which major party is in government.
My concern is that wages and productivity no longer seem to be translating into the same improvements in living standards they once did. At the same time, public infrastructure and services are under growing strain while our political debate increasingly revolves around which group should carry the cost, rather than how we build a more sustainable system.
You can disagree with TOP's solution, and I'm not convinced they've got every detail right either. But I can understand why some homeowners would support a policy that costs them personally if they believe the long-term alternative is continued housing distortion, declining public services, and a political system that keeps managing symptoms rather than causes.
It seems that housing prices are down, and well down, from their peak in 2021.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/598195/another-flat-month-for-nz-housing-market
The 'bad' news for home-owners and property investors, is that we need this to continue for another decade – in order to correct for the boom from the late Twenty-teens.
My concern over this, is not the deflation of values (I think this needs to happen) – but that it's being driven primarily by emigration (fewer people wanting houses), and economic stagnation (people don't feel in an economic position to apply for a mortgage). I don't see how any of TOP's policies address either of these issues.
I don't see how any of TOP's policies address either of these issues.
Do you not think that more money in people's pockets, via the citizens' income, would encourage more spending, and in turn encourage more production, and more employment, by businesses.
Yep, that's a pretty kite flown by Op. What makes you think they can bring it into the material world?
that's a pretty kite flown by Op. What makes you think they can bring it into the material world?
I don't think that either of us can answer that question. We will just have to wait and see. However there is a certain logic to the idea.
Sure, it's easy to float a good idea, but what are the chances/pathways to it becoming a reality?
I don't see anything solid here.
If you want parties that will definitely implement most of their plans at some point, you're stuck with National or Labour.
Considering TOP's annual land value tax policy, why would homeowners (with or without a mortgage) and prospective homeowners (particularly those who would require a mortgage) be motivated to vote for TOP?
The citizens' income that they advocate, would probably more than cover any land tax they may have to pay. In fact citizens' income and land tax are meant to be complementary.
In which case, what's the point? It's a rotating fund of money in/money out – with the ticket being clipped, administratively, at each step.
Or does that balance between citizens' income and land tax not apply to the 'wealthy'.
The point of a land tax is that those having a lot of land, or more valuable land, will pay more in land tax than the rest of the land owning population. Land should then gravitate towards its best use. One might hope, also, that it might help to reduce property values.
The citizens' income should be the same for everybody.
So your original statement
is effectively untrue for a sector of the home-owning population. At this stage, we don't know how large that sector would be.
Land taxes have not, in general, ever reduced property values. These are driven by demand. We can see this by looking at rates – which are our current form of land tax. High rates in Remuera, Khandallah and Fendalton haven't noticably depressed property prices in those suburbs.
is effectively untrue for a sector of the home-owning population. At this stage, we don't know how large that sector would be.
You are being very pessimistic. I guess they will find the extra money somehow.
Land taxes have not, in general, ever reduced property values.
Well, I said only that this may be something one might hope for.
It's the job of the party to explain their policies in sufficient detail, so that optimism or pessimism isn't required to interpret them.
They think I'm God" – M J Savage.
Unfortunately, politicians are not gods. There will always be a degree of uncertainty about political predictions.
However, this is not a political prediction, but a policy. It's the job of the party to explain their policies in sufficient detail.
It's the job of the party to explain their policies in sufficient detail
What does the word "sufficient" really mean in a concrete situation.
Does it mean they have to have all the costs worked out to the nearest cent.
PS: In my post I probably should have said “political possibilities”
TOP's land tax and UBI would be dead in the water in its current form, in any coalition with the current National/ACT/NZF government.
I doubt it's going to fly with a coalition on the left, either.
Voters may also have an opinion, don't you think.
Voters can have all the opinions they want. Reality is coalition negotiations, and the tiny amount of leverage minnow parties have.
Peters is perhaps the exception that proves the rule – but Peters is a wily negotiator with literally decades of experience in dealing.
Aye, there's the nub, Belladonna.
Install TOP and get … nothing.
Sweet deal!
Labour had to wait about fifteen years before they were given a chance govern. The Greens have been waiting about twentyfive years, I think.
TOP then, won't mind the 15-year wait.
Young up-starts, all piss &wind 🙂
TOP then, won't mind the 15-year wait.
Well, as the bard said "There is a tide in the affairs of men which, taken at the flood, leads on to victory."
Perhaps TOP won't have to wait so long. There is reason to suppose that the precariat will be increasing in the coming years.
Sure. Have you made up your mind, mikesh?
“Labour had to wait about fifteen years before they were given a chance govern. The Greens have been waiting about twentyfive years, I think.”
The Social Credit case was interesting. They began by arguing their case from within the Labour Party. Finding that they were making no headway they decided to go it alone, so in 1954 they formed their own party. However , I think this was a mistake, for two reasons,
When proportional voting arrived they joined Jim Anderson's Alliance – another mistake: they received very little, policy wise, from the Alliance. At that point in their journey they might have fared better on their own.
May as well only vote for National or Labour since they will eventually be in a position to implement most of their policies. Ignore the other parties, they have no chance.
Outer-edge policies from minor parties on the right and on the left, have little or no chance of being enacted – even if the party is part of a coalition.
The 'best' that voters can expect from these parties is that they will influence the major parties from inside the tent; and that some elements of their policy – where the larger party is in broad agreement, or neutral – will gain support.
If a policy from a minor party is directly antithetical to the policy of either Labour or National, it's not going to get across the line – regardless of where the minor party ends up in coalition.
With a party on the fringe of electability (as TOP is – under the 5% threshold, and banking on winning an electorate seat – a strategy they tried in the last election, and failed) – then the voter is dicing with a wasted vote.
In those circumstances, I'd be looking to find the party which is guaranteed to get in (there is a choice of 5*) and figuring out which set of policies aligns best with my goals. Especially in an election which is so tight – you don't want wasted votes.
*Excluding TPM – as it seems likely they will have overhang seats – so a party vote is wasted.
If a policy from a minor party is directly antithetical to the policy of either Labour or National, it's not going to get across the line – regardless of where the minor party ends up in coalition.
Not all policies will be "antithetical" to a major party even if the policy is not included in that party's manifesto.
No, of course not – there will always be some overlap – which is why I said
But where it is antithetical, there is zero possibility of it being enacted.
Going back to the original point of this discussion – do you feel that TOPs policy of UBI and land tax is going to fly with either National or Labour?
My take is that there is close to zero chance of it being agreed by either. Certainly there is no scope in the public statements or policies released by either party to indicate any support.
And, something which has such a broad impact on the tax and benefit base, is not an issue where you will see the tail wagging the dog.
Going back to the original point of this discussion – do you feel that TOPs policy of UBI and land tax is going to fly with either National or Labour?
Perhaps not immediately, but eventually some party will, I think.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win" – quotation generally attributed to Ghandi.
PS: I think Labour would quite like to put I place a UBI policy, but they would probably be worried about what the electorate's reaction might be.
If people want more radical TOP or Green policies, they have to vote for them in sufficient numbers to get them. There's no room in politics for small parties with a limited vision – it's more practical to join a bigger party and lobby internally for policies than to spend a pile of time and money getting nowhere. For smaller parties to stand out and have any chance of getting anywhere, they have to offer policies that the bigger parties don't or won't.
If an individual has a single policy or legislative change they want to see, getting elected through a bigger party and pushing a members bill is probably the best option for actual success.
Only if the major party in question gets more than 50%. Unlikely in today's political environment.
Can you give a single example in NZ where coalition talks have resulted in a coalition where the major party has agreed to implement a policy where they were in profound disagreement with it?
Why would I wish to seek out something like that?
So, no, then.
Reinforcing the reality that major policies of minnow parties, have zero chance of implementation, unless they align with the major coalition partner.
UBI and land tax aligns with neither Labour nor National. The chances of TOP being able to implement these – even if they managed to get elected (anything but a done deal) – are effectively zero.
Obviously they make no headway against "profound disagreement" which makes your answer tautological. But you can't really be sure that such "profound disagreement" exists. Labour in particular may be sympathetic but not yet willing to include a UBI in its manifesto.
Labour has been pretty clear that they only 'new' tax they are proposing is their limited capital gains tax, with the revenue targeted to the GP visits.
There is zero evidence that they are in any way willing to consider a land tax to support a UBI.
https://www.labour.org.nz/blog-pages/growing-the-economy-and-funding-free-doctor-s-visits/
if TOP were in a kingmaker position, I expect some shift from Labour.
A UBI is not a tax.
There may be ways other than a land tax to support a UBI. And, in any case, political parties are not tied to promises made on the hustings.
Nothing like an astroturf organisation promising UBIs and land taxes to get the distracted and comfortable left to take their eyes off the prize.
I wish I was secure enough to entertain this millionaires' pet project.
93 comments when I read this. What a waste.
Not all were from the distracted and comfortable left...
Nothing like an astroturf organisation promising UBIs and land taxes to get the distracted and comfortable left to take their eyes off the prize.
This election will be their fourth. Not too bad, I think, for an "astroturf organisation". They seem to have maintained their support.
Tory scum, just like the rest. IMHO!!
The humility you attribute to your opinion is well merited.
"If ya can't take a joke – politics 'ant for you"
a white
Come to think of it – Mt Albert is an odd electorate to choose to tilt at.
It's got a very long history of Labour MPs (including Ardern) – and Helen White held it in the teeth of the 2023 electorate reversal against Labour. And seems likely to do so on the back of a resurgent Labour this year.
I should have thought that one of the electorates that National flipped in Auckland in 2023 (e.g. Mt Roskill or New Lynn) – would be a better option. They've already demonstrated that they are more fluid – and the sitting MP doesn't have a lot of traction.
I'm assuming that internal polling is showing TOP something which isn't apparent to outside observers. But it does seem an odd choice.
I would like to see Q put her money where her mouth is and stand in Epsom. But of course she won't pick a side except to target a Labour seat.
https://www.opportunity.org.nz/meet_qiulae_in_mt_albert
Yes I know that. Not far from Epsom.
Yes, literally adjacent:
https://elections.nz/assets/Boundary-Review/2025/Maps/Mt-Albert.pdf
She could have made a statement in Epsom. I noticed in her interview with Heather Duplicity-Allen when talking about their new convenient policy of not allowing their (as yet non-existent MPs) to use their allowances to invest in property the first person she attacked was Chris Hipkins.
Also, they like the rest of the Right wing parties in NZ have a sweet deal with wealthy donors so I imagine they televise there are sponsorship opportunities outside of salary to suppliment their income.
And a difficult to flip (as I outlined above) Labour seat.
It all seems rather pointless. For headlines, rather than a realistic expectation of winning?
Standing in Epsom would be a completely different pitch on a completely different pitch. I think that Wong/TOP might do quite well in Mt Albert.
Well, they might. But it seems unlikely that they'd unseat a Labour MP in a Labour stronghold. When they could have had a tilt at Mt Roskill or New Lynn. Both with insecure National MPs, and a recent history of flipping.
I'd also say that it would be highly unlikely that they'd unseat the sitting MP in Epsom – with a around a 8K majority.
Both Epsom and Mt Albert seem unlikely targets, for different reasons.
This article partially answers the question in the OP. It analyses empirical data from the last three elections and concludes: “Opportunity has consistently presented itself as a blue-green party open to working with either major bloc. The data suggests TOP was strongly blue-green in 2017, remained broadly mixed in 2020, but by 2023 had become much more Labour-Green adjacent across multiple measures.”
https://open.substack.com/pub/paulkennedygunson/p/where-do-opportunity-votes-come-from
TOP seem to have something in common with Social Credit, a party which managed to survive for many decades, and even managed to obtain a smattering of parliamentary seats, without ever achieving anything. Both parties had excellent "flagship" policies, but those policies were treading on a lot of vested interest toes.
Mikesh how would have social credit feared under mmp,?
MMT has a reasonable following worldwide, so, had they not joined the Alliance, they may have managed to attract support for their core policies. China’s economic success over the last few decades seems to owe at least something to their banks being government owned.
I hear on TV1 last night that the latest poll has them at 4.something%, and that they could wind up as the 'king-maker' if other party's votes hold up steady. Something seems to be building for them, and I too wonder why these votes aren't going to the Greens or TPM. In today's political climate it seems out of the question they can gain traction with the current coalition?
Teal voters got traction in Oz last election, eh? I haven't noticed TOP using that hue yet, so maybe they lack marketing pizzazz. Seems like their boost is due to pulling liberal Nat voters away from Luxon. I suspect some also from Labour's progressive wing, due to lack of leadership there. You're quite right about the king-maker role.
Watch the trend, and the undecideds in each poll. TOP are on an upward trend for the past 6 months. Doesn't mean the 4.x % is real beyond that poll, but the next few polls will be interesting and I expect it will get them more media attention and that will keep building their baseline support.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2026_New_Zealand_general_election
A lot is about to change with parties starting to roll out their policies.
@ Bill @ 18
Contrasting TOP and Greens/TPM polling.
A couple of observations: TOP enjoying a honeymoon period.
The other is they haven't dealt with tiptoeing through the minefield that is the various fronts of the culture wars.
As an example their membership and representatives haven't had to reconsile uplifting those with gender identity issues and upholding women's sex based rights.
When gender issues come before parliament they should be treated as "conscience" issues. MPs should only vote along party lines on economic and expenditure issues.
@ mikesh @ 19.1
All good when they hit Parliament, I'm talking about when vested interests ask TOP candidates questions such as "Is a trans woman a woman?" or "What is a woman?"
Do TOP really operate, produce policy, select candidates etc. without member input? Are they really a "group of 3", one of whom is Lees-Galloway? Did they really advertise on-line for their leader?
Doesn't feel like a natural result of democracy, imo.
Without that base of invested citizenry, how solid can its kaupapa be?
They seem like tissue paper, vulnerable to the slightest change in the weather.
Not something I'd make a tent from.
In reference to the comment I posted last night about how TOP organise inside the party, I think it needs to be fact checked.
https://thestandard.nz/daily-review-24-06-2026/#comment-2065641
I put it to the gizmo; how is democratic decision-making done within the Opportunities party?
Looks like a design intended to balance the wisdom of the crowd against insider group-think, which is a worthy intention. Experimental tweaking via trial & error would make sense for managing progress on this basis.
A useless output with some links that are 6 years old with outdated content and irrelevant policy stuff.
If you want to waste your own time then that’s your prerogative but don’t waste other people’s time with useless stuff.
If you want to know the answer, which I doubt, then read TOP’s Constitution document (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sVxgXWR0zhEofnoGhrbfIwgHiAFeLACx/view) which is where you might find it, I presume.