I'm not 100 percent sure, but I'm starting to lean towards this being an error.
If you didn't catch the poll, the screaming message from it was that nobody gets to govern unless they have Opportunity. The centre-right bloc has a combined total of 57 seats. That's not enough. You need 61-plus to govern.
The centre-left, once you take out the ridiculous thing TVNZ does by counting six Māori Party seats, which is just unreasonable, probably has about 55 seats. Again, that's not enough. Opportunity has nine.
Both sides of the political divide need Opportunity's seats to form a Government.
Now, look, things are going to change. One poll does not mean that's what happens on November 7 and Opportunity will almost certainly come back from this. This is probably too high for them.
But I think the message here is clear: this scenario is now a live possibility in a way it wasn't before, especially after the failed coup, which must almost certainly dent the chances of an outright centre-right victory.
That poll will have scared National Party MPs for two reasons.
First, the centre-right doesn't win in that poll.
Second, Opportunity did not die after Chris Luxon ruled them out. In fact, they went up instead. What he would have hoped is that by ruling them out, they would fade away as a political force. Instead, they shot up to 8 percent.
Now, look, Opportunity is a pretty radical left-wing party, okay? They sit more comfortably on the left.
But the fact is, the policies they're spruiking, the ideas National will say no to, are also ideas Labour will say no to. Chris Hipkins knows that if he says to Opportunity, "Yep, absolutely fine. Let's roll out a universal basic income. Let's introduce a land tax. Let's lift the age of youth crime to 25," he'll only last one term in Government because that stuff is nutty.
It's nuttier than anything the Jacinda Ardern Government did with the Greens.
Because of that, because Labour will say no and National will say no, it neutralises Opportunity. Neither side is going to put up with their more radical ideas. Both sides will only agree to the more sensible proposals.
Which means Opportunity possibly becomes a viable support partner for the centre-right as well.
And that raises the question: has the Prime Minister made a mistake by ruling them out? And does he now need to row that back?
Heather du Plessis-Allan is a journalist and radio broadcaster who hosts Newstalk ZB's weekday Drive-Time Show – where this article was sourced.
17 comments:
Principles matter more than power. Yes, Luxon was right to throw water on anything happening with TOP. National voters will flee to the other minor parties if the poses the possibility of any opportunities for them.
I don't think TOP will get past the 5% mark.
The media is pushing them relentlessly but hopefully people will see through the sham policies. Kevin
Opportunity's leader is way more impressive than the non leaders of all other political parties. She's the niece of my former top finance colleague Professor Jilnaught Wong, one of this country's best. He lives in Remuera in Epsom. Opportunity reflects youth dissatisfaction with National and Labour. Rightly so. The PM's rejection of it shows he rejects hopes & dreams of our youngsters who have found themselves living in a stagnant state poorly served this past decade by both National & Labour. Give me the young, charming & intelligent Opportunity leader any day above the two appalling cold crusty chumocracy Chris's desperate to be PM for their CVs but not for NZers. By the way, Heather, her Universal Basic Income that you and Lux call far left was advocated for by the most respected pro market, far right wing economist in the world, Milton Friedman. But of course Lux & Willis don't read economics books.
Did Luxon get a consensus from hos colleagues , or was he firing from the hip again ?
C’mon Bobby boy, you know Milton never advocated for a UBI - as in everyone gets it - like Top are proposing. He supported the idea of a Negative Income Tax for low earners, a different thing altogether.
@robert - if our youth think TOP is the answer to their problems then we're doing something seriously wrong with what our youth are taught. Impressive miss q might be - but she is so far from the answer to the problems of this country as to actually be as big a threat to the sovereignty - peace - and stability of this country as those a-holes in the Waitangi tribunal.
Her communist policies will result in anyone who doesn't work for govt selling up and leaving for one of the few remaining democracies...USA/ Aus - even Argentina is now a possibility.
If you're wondering what her policies will do to NZ - look at the Argentina experience of the past 25 years.....they are now recovering. The recovery under Millei is painful - but it isn't as painful as the policies that got them to that point in the first place....all well meaning politicians that focussed on wealth redistribution. It doesn't work. Communism doesn't work, Socialism doesn't work, higher taxes don't work, universal government income doesn't work.....why is it so difficult for people to pick up any modern history book?
@robert
Milton Friedman did not propose a traditional Universal Basic Income (UBI), but instead advocated for a Negative Income Tax (NIT) in his 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom. While similar to UBI in providing a cash floor for the poor, Friedman's model was tied to the tax system and designed to dismantle the broader welfare bureaucracy.
The last thing this country needs is more people claiming welfare!
Giddy Aunt.
The opportunist party , fabricated, delusional , far out , is another example of MMP and the denigration of our system.
I love the readers on this site. And respect you for saying I'd fail Econ 101 for not knowing the difference between Opportunity's UBI and what you assert is a completely different beast, being Friedman's negative income tax. Don't tell my employer or Luxon and get me fired like Penk. Maybe I should go reread the Head of Harvard's Econ Department Greg Mankiw (2021) article that illustrated
how the NIT can replicate the same allocation as the UBI by providing an identical marginal effective tax schedule. He states, "The two policies are equivalent because the net payment - that is, taxes less transfers - is identical under the two policies . . . The difference is only a matter of framing". The supporters of UBI are a who 's who of famous Republicans in America, including Mankiw. Here he is =
https://youtu.be/TQGWCbub25g?si=7YAfqklUu3sHPauF
No he did not
They are our third lunatic party
We already had the greens and the racist party 🤦♂️
You would have to be insane to be anywhere near aligned with the TOP mob.
Don't believe the polls from some half-baked news channel.
I didn't realize people were still watching that claptrap woke nonsense that passes itself off as a news broadcaster.
If National ever decide to work with a Marxist cult, there will be more than outrage.
A public revolt would not be out of the question.
The face of the opportunity party is certainly better at her job than any of the others. However, calling her the 'leader' is a stretch. The party existed and had it's ideas in place before she applied for the spokesperson job.
Robert @ 12.12, You have backed yourself into a corner and are trying to fight your way out using jargon and obscure quotes. The fact remains Tops UBI goes to everyone, Friedman’s NIT goes only to those who need it.
Media who describe TOP as centrist are mistaken. Their policies are rabidly to the left, right alongside the Maori Party and the Greens. There is no common ground to form a coalition with any of the current coalition partners.
The Nats would be bonkers to give even a hint of a suggestion that they'd work with TOP. It's a radical left-wing party, with radical ideas. It wants to separate many of us from such money as we have, and drive this country even further down the ideological rabbit hole. A very bad idea: we need as a nation to pay down government debt. It'll be a long, hard grind, but it must be done.
Forget TOP and Party vote ACT or NZF only .
Electorate Vote National if appropriate and then NZ will have the coalition with more strength .
Remember a wasted TOP vote is shared between all parties after polling day .
So Prof MacCullough in the video Prof Mankiw is talking about a consumption tax to pay for the UBI. Would that mean we would have to increase GST to pay for it?
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.