Kevin: She Must Be Taking Lessons From Chlöe

Opportunity leader Qiulae 7ong has defended accepting more than $400,000 in political donations this year while campaigning to ban them, saying the party has to “play the game with everyone else” to get into parliament.

[…] But the party’s leader was grilled as she appeared on Q+A this morning.

 

Wong appeared to launch a package of policies she said would “clean up politics”, including a proposed ban on donations above $30,000, an end to donations from companies, a lobbyist register and a stand-down period for ex-ministers.

But Opportunity has accepted six donations over $30,000 this year, totalling more than $400,000, and has taken in more in large donations than the Labour Party, Q+A reports.

Asked why the party was accepting so many of the donations it wanted outlawed, Wong said the $30,000 threshold came from the Independent Electoral Review.

She cast the contradiction as a means to an end.

I ran this past my mate Claude who said:

It’s chiefly a false dilemma: the only two options offered are total unilateral restraint or full participation, which erases the whole middle range of doing some things and refusing the worst. That’s propped up by loaded framing (“two hands behind our back,” the faintly sneering “higher moral ground”) that makes the ethical option look like self-sabotage before it’s argued against, by an appeal to common practice (“play the game with everyone else”), which treats what others do as licence rather than as evidence about incentives, and by an ends-justify-means move resting on an unverifiable promise – “change the rules as quickly as possible” – that has no mechanism, no cost if broken, and an obvious incentive problem, since the rules that got you in are the ones you now benefit from. The underlying strategic worry is real enough; it’s the argument that’s rigged, not necessarily the conclusion.

Pressed on why Opportunity should benefit from a campaign fuelled by big donations and then pull up the ladder behind it, Wong pointed to the sums raised by bigger parties.

“At the moment, we have to compete with National, who have raised $11 million, compared to our $400,000, from large donations,” she said.

Well, let me put it this way. The Internet Party (remember them?) got crushed despite being well-funded. Donations will only get you so far. You also need good policies and a good team that will help you get elected.

 

“I don’t see any of the other political parties proposing to change the system, which we all, I think, agree is unfair. I think most voters would agree that that’s unfair.

“Nobody else is proposing to get into parliament and make those changes. If we can’t raise that money and don’t get into parliament, we’ll have even less of a chance of making that difference for future voters.”

[…] Wong was grilled on Q+A by interviewer Jack Tame, who pressed the Opportunity leader on whether her party was set up transparently, and if its tax policy stacked up.

Wong was challenged on Opportunity’s flagship citizen’s income of almost $20,000 a year for every eligible adult, which would be paid to New Zealanders, but intended to be balanced in the books with a much higher income tax rate.

To qualify, recipients must have lived in New Zealand for five of the previous 10 years.

Q+A put it to her that a couple earning $125,000 each who moved back after more than five years away would be worse off by $17,000 a year renting, or $27,000 if they bought a home, paying the higher tax rate while getting no citizen’s income.

Wong, who spent nine years in the UK, confirmed she herself would not have qualified on returning home.

She said returning New Zealanders needed to weigh up the wider picture.

A rule for thee but not for me.

I admit I’ve only watched part of the interview as I can think of better things to do with my time, like watching my cat throw up hairballs. But what I did see reminded me of a Chlöe Charlotte Swarbrick being interviewed.

I can’t quite put my finger on it, but if you’ve watched the interview you’ll know what I mean.

All I can say is that Qiulae has been definitely taking lessons from Chlöe.

Kevin is a Libertarian and pragmatic anarchist. His favourite saying: “There but for the grace of God go I.” This article was first published HERE