I think it's entirely appropriate to question the motives of a party like TOP. They appear to be a front for the faction of the ruling class that disagrees with the techno-optimists that AI and robotics will solve the perennial problem of "how do I ensure the loyalty of my servants and soldiers once society collapses" and still worries about ending up against the wall. Their view of politics as a variant of animal husbandry is deeply dystopian. If your political horizon is a nation of happy, healthy, compliant slaves ready to serve the schemes of "innovators", it's clear what class interest you are serving.
I do not (and nor should anyone) support a tax structure that ignores the exponential nature of equity growth in favour of the linear nature of real estate growth. Nor do I think that taxing me on my house value (sort of like the rates?) will lead me to invest in Kiwi start-ups by selling my home and sleeping rough. Who would? It's a nonsense.
Thank you so much Ryan, this is really valuable analysis: TOP has felt pretty opaque and this has motivated me to actually look at them.
For starters, as a party committed to change, neither to criticise ACT, nor mention the appalling series of destructive legislative changes and policies that pour out of the coalition, is weird as hell.
The policies are empty, very little makes sense, or is what it seems. The land tax as the Great Equaliser is rubbish and I urge folks to have a look. The land my house sits on is worth $500k according to my rates bill. This land tax would take another $9,000 or so off me, in addition to the $9,000-odd in rates I already pay. Further, instead of NZ Super, apparently I'm going to live on this universal income of $370 a week, and get tax benefits, though I can't fathom from where.
Nothing about social housing:, the land tax and massive increases in building will take care of it. Houses will cost 3 x our income again: based on the median wage, they'll cost about $210,000. 😕
Increasing R&D up to 2% of GDP? Progressive countries spend 3% or more. Tripling renewable electricity generation? This would bring NZ up to 100% renewable electricity, but does nothing to reduce petrol and diesel vehicles or coal for industry, which account for over half our consumption.
The ocean protection thing is unfathomable. About 1.75m ha is now marine reserve. Are they seriously proposing to add about 120 million hectares? How? Choose zones that are never fished anyway? "Put cameras on commercial fishing boats"? Has TOP been reading the news?
It's like a book with a pretty cover but no story inside. The whole thing feels surreal, and very worrying.
I’m glad you found it helpful. I got weird vibes from them in their previous iteration and now it seems clear that they want to try anything but actually progressive redistribution of wealth. But that means their policy settings make no sense.
Can only think that as these policies would never be adopted - so their practicality will not, in fact be tested - the agenda is indeed not to rule, in fact, but to swing the vote away from the left as you suggest.
Exactly. Who funds them? Who has the leader voted for in the past? National - not Labour ever. Just an attempt to lure some left leaning voters towards a left sounding party who will side with National.
Using a word like opportunity around politics is nothing if not brave. Of course we have principles . If the electorate doesn't like these ones, we have others etc.
It is a longstanding policy by TOP to implement an UBI and the land value tax was announced also before the 2023 election.
As a warning sign, it is crucial to understand which international organisation promotes the UBI the most: the World Economic Forum. It is happening despite there is no convincing argument that it is sustainable for any government.
The land value tax serves the second element of the WEF’s 2030 agenda, the Great Reset: you will own nothing and you will be happy! New Zealand’s land ownership is crucial for the global elite.
Thought encouraging writing - thanks, Ryan. One thing I favour that the Opp party would promote, is the citizens' assembly. It seems to be working well overseas - Holland, Scotland, Belgium and elsewhere too. The emphasis on involving community in decision making is so refreshing in comparison with what we have had to endure here over the past 3 years. However, as you point out, other aspects of Opp's policies lean to more of the same old neo-liberal direction. So thanks for the heads up.
I’m curious about the citizens’ assemblies as well. But it’s unclear how they would actually work and whether they would really carry much weight. I agree that is a positive idea.
Having read their "Citizen's Voice" policy proposal carefully, my verdict is that it sucks.
What they are offering is: randomly selected, representative groups (roughly 100 people, up to 120 members matching Parliament's size) who deliberate on complex issues like housing or superannuation. They hear from experts and make recommendations that Parliament must formally debate and respond to. As well as a Parliamentary Commissioner to act as an "independent officer" who would oversee the process, ensuring fairness and tracking the government's response to the assemblies' recommendations.
The policy states Parliament must "respond" to recommendations, but responses can simply be a debate or a report, with no requirement to adopt the assembly's proposals. This is a "bait & switch" from "a real seat at the table" to a purely advisory role. Ultimately, Cabinet retains final legislative power. This is top-down permission structure, not the direct democracy that citizens' assemblies are supposed to offer.
The policy explicitly aims to give politicians "social license to act", allowing them to say to donors or their base: "sorry guys, but there's nothing I can do - it's what the people want". Instead of empowering citizens to challenge the state, the assembly serves as a legitimacy shield for unpopular establishment decisions. Which makes this version of a citizen's assembly little more than a co-opting mechanism.
Ultimately, this is managed participation in which a "mini-public" convened by the state, filtered through experts, and facilitated by professionals acts as a containment strategy: directing class anger into a controlled forum where radical demands are diluted through "expert evidence" and facilitated consensus. Like jury duty, this is a civic obligation, not an autonomous movement.
Opportunity are framing this as a tool to fix gridlock. But the "gridlock" is actually the state's function as a capitalist instrument. A policy designed to make the existing system work more efficiently is counter-revolutionary because it seeks to manage capitalism better rather than replace it.
Lastly, Opportunity states that Māori will participate by saying "where a topic directly affects a group... the Commissioner will be responsible for proactively supporting that group's engagement", but for me this raises concerns about assimilating Indigenous sovereignty into a state-managed process.
This was my feeling from reading the summary. A “democratic” tool that serves to placate citizens while doing nothing to actually hold ministers accountable to the public.
Great opportunity? Yeah- Naaaaaaaaah!
I think it's entirely appropriate to question the motives of a party like TOP. They appear to be a front for the faction of the ruling class that disagrees with the techno-optimists that AI and robotics will solve the perennial problem of "how do I ensure the loyalty of my servants and soldiers once society collapses" and still worries about ending up against the wall. Their view of politics as a variant of animal husbandry is deeply dystopian. If your political horizon is a nation of happy, healthy, compliant slaves ready to serve the schemes of "innovators", it's clear what class interest you are serving.
Very well said
I do not (and nor should anyone) support a tax structure that ignores the exponential nature of equity growth in favour of the linear nature of real estate growth. Nor do I think that taxing me on my house value (sort of like the rates?) will lead me to invest in Kiwi start-ups by selling my home and sleeping rough. Who would? It's a nonsense.
Exactly. Be very suspicious of the Opportunist’s Party and all their fan mail from msm
terrific analysis and clear-eyed scepticism. Thanks.
Thank you so much Ryan, this is really valuable analysis: TOP has felt pretty opaque and this has motivated me to actually look at them.
For starters, as a party committed to change, neither to criticise ACT, nor mention the appalling series of destructive legislative changes and policies that pour out of the coalition, is weird as hell.
The policies are empty, very little makes sense, or is what it seems. The land tax as the Great Equaliser is rubbish and I urge folks to have a look. The land my house sits on is worth $500k according to my rates bill. This land tax would take another $9,000 or so off me, in addition to the $9,000-odd in rates I already pay. Further, instead of NZ Super, apparently I'm going to live on this universal income of $370 a week, and get tax benefits, though I can't fathom from where.
Nothing about social housing:, the land tax and massive increases in building will take care of it. Houses will cost 3 x our income again: based on the median wage, they'll cost about $210,000. 😕
Increasing R&D up to 2% of GDP? Progressive countries spend 3% or more. Tripling renewable electricity generation? This would bring NZ up to 100% renewable electricity, but does nothing to reduce petrol and diesel vehicles or coal for industry, which account for over half our consumption.
The ocean protection thing is unfathomable. About 1.75m ha is now marine reserve. Are they seriously proposing to add about 120 million hectares? How? Choose zones that are never fished anyway? "Put cameras on commercial fishing boats"? Has TOP been reading the news?
It's like a book with a pretty cover but no story inside. The whole thing feels surreal, and very worrying.
I’m glad you found it helpful. I got weird vibes from them in their previous iteration and now it seems clear that they want to try anything but actually progressive redistribution of wealth. But that means their policy settings make no sense.
Can only think that as these policies would never be adopted - so their practicality will not, in fact be tested - the agenda is indeed not to rule, in fact, but to swing the vote away from the left as you suggest.
Exactly. Who funds them? Who has the leader voted for in the past? National - not Labour ever. Just an attempt to lure some left leaning voters towards a left sounding party who will side with National.
Don’t get sucked in!
Where is this information? Nefarious!
Oh Mr Jones, that's an eye opener (the leader's voting).
Yeah there's this sense of something odious in the basement here.
Using a word like opportunity around politics is nothing if not brave. Of course we have principles . If the electorate doesn't like these ones, we have others etc.
Edit: I wouldn't vote green either. The eco-opportunists across the pond here don't even have a policy position on trying to make an endless-growth economy work on a finite planet. Not only that, the secular eco-priesthood seem to think degrowth is some kind of conspiracy against the middle class. Somehow this is happening: https://worldecology.info/mitigation-efforts-to-reduce-carbon-dioxide-emissions-and-meet-the-paris-agreement-have-been-offset-by-economic-growth/
Thank you for the insight. Much appreciated.
Thank you for this analysis!
It is a longstanding policy by TOP to implement an UBI and the land value tax was announced also before the 2023 election.
As a warning sign, it is crucial to understand which international organisation promotes the UBI the most: the World Economic Forum. It is happening despite there is no convincing argument that it is sustainable for any government.
The land value tax serves the second element of the WEF’s 2030 agenda, the Great Reset: you will own nothing and you will be happy! New Zealand’s land ownership is crucial for the global elite.
Interesting analysis as sometimes centrist parties can be useful in splitting the right's coalition.
Thought encouraging writing - thanks, Ryan. One thing I favour that the Opp party would promote, is the citizens' assembly. It seems to be working well overseas - Holland, Scotland, Belgium and elsewhere too. The emphasis on involving community in decision making is so refreshing in comparison with what we have had to endure here over the past 3 years. However, as you point out, other aspects of Opp's policies lean to more of the same old neo-liberal direction. So thanks for the heads up.
I’m curious about the citizens’ assemblies as well. But it’s unclear how they would actually work and whether they would really carry much weight. I agree that is a positive idea.
Having read their "Citizen's Voice" policy proposal carefully, my verdict is that it sucks.
What they are offering is: randomly selected, representative groups (roughly 100 people, up to 120 members matching Parliament's size) who deliberate on complex issues like housing or superannuation. They hear from experts and make recommendations that Parliament must formally debate and respond to. As well as a Parliamentary Commissioner to act as an "independent officer" who would oversee the process, ensuring fairness and tracking the government's response to the assemblies' recommendations.
The policy states Parliament must "respond" to recommendations, but responses can simply be a debate or a report, with no requirement to adopt the assembly's proposals. This is a "bait & switch" from "a real seat at the table" to a purely advisory role. Ultimately, Cabinet retains final legislative power. This is top-down permission structure, not the direct democracy that citizens' assemblies are supposed to offer.
The policy explicitly aims to give politicians "social license to act", allowing them to say to donors or their base: "sorry guys, but there's nothing I can do - it's what the people want". Instead of empowering citizens to challenge the state, the assembly serves as a legitimacy shield for unpopular establishment decisions. Which makes this version of a citizen's assembly little more than a co-opting mechanism.
Ultimately, this is managed participation in which a "mini-public" convened by the state, filtered through experts, and facilitated by professionals acts as a containment strategy: directing class anger into a controlled forum where radical demands are diluted through "expert evidence" and facilitated consensus. Like jury duty, this is a civic obligation, not an autonomous movement.
Opportunity are framing this as a tool to fix gridlock. But the "gridlock" is actually the state's function as a capitalist instrument. A policy designed to make the existing system work more efficiently is counter-revolutionary because it seeks to manage capitalism better rather than replace it.
Lastly, Opportunity states that Māori will participate by saying "where a topic directly affects a group... the Commissioner will be responsible for proactively supporting that group's engagement", but for me this raises concerns about assimilating Indigenous sovereignty into a state-managed process.
This was my feeling from reading the summary. A “democratic” tool that serves to placate citizens while doing nothing to actually hold ministers accountable to the public.