TOP Party one to watch in this election

[BlackPeter]

Wrong again. ACT not getting my vote at all. Seymour is a pompous little prick.

Interesting - I didn't realised that you are one of the extremist you talked about :);

Even I wouldn't describe Seymour that harsh ... I guess, he has the head screwed on at the right place, its just that he sold his soul for a handful of votes from the gun lobby and that he prefers austerity to a flourishing economy. But hey,

So - who will be the lucky political star you will be voting for :)? The self appointed bishop - or one of these parties with "freedom" or "democracy" in their name? You wouldn't vote for the womens or animals rights parties, wouldn't you?

[Logen Ninefingers]

OK - Logan the Ninefingers gave me just a negative rep for this post. He said:

"Calling people 'scumbags' because of their political views is disgraceful, you should be well and truly ashamed of yourself."

Dear Logan, I would really aprreciate if you would first try to comprehend other peoples posts before you go on your rampage. Feels like you are an angry man - and your reptile brain is now in control, is it?

I called Peter Thiel a scumbag for supporting a crook, not for his political views - and this is clearly visible in the post above.

Logan, as so often you are wrong and you have proven yourself as a hypocrite (when you gave Azz positive rep for calling me a psychopath". You are an embarrassment for any decent conservative person.

Egg all over your face ...

So I have to 'understand' your posts now? Unbelievable.
Others won't go toe to toe with you on this, but I will. I don't like what you are doing here, attacking people with negative reputation c-rap because they have a different political perspective than you. Sorry, I won't be backing down on TOP and grifter Manji, I'll keep talking about them right up until their inevitable defeat on 14 October.

[BlackPeter]

So I have to 'understand' your posts now? Unbelievable.
Others won't go toe to toe with you on this, but I will. I don't like what you are doing here, attacking people with negative reputation c-rap because they have a different political perspective than you. Sorry, I won't be backing down on TOP and grifter Manji, I'll keep talking about them right up until their inevitable defeat on 14 October.

Pretty sick post. Please seek some help.

Ah yes - and your attack on Manji tells us a lot about yourself. Grifting would be a criminal activity. Could you provide any evidence or are you only projecting?

[Logen Ninefingers]

And now another 'negative reputation' attack from BlackPeter, this one just saying something about 'clearly a man on a rampage'. Bizarre.

What I don't get is how this disturbed person is able to attack other posters almost constantly.

[BlackPeter]

Sadly Logan is not even able to follow quite simple instructions. He would have needed to enter the land value of the average property instead of entering the capital value (btw, land value is less, unless you live on a section without improvements).

I we take his proposed salary and an average urban land value of say $350000 (that's the price for the section without a house on it), than you would pay $2 more in tax per week if we apply the TOP tax proposal.

If your section however is rural (not urban), you would save $2520 pa.

I suggest he does the calculation again and you do at least a minimum of processing and research before you parrot the misinformation some right wing trolls like Logan are spreading.

So dumb, but tells us a lot about the hard right. Making up stories, and spreading the lies.


Logans response:

Accusing others of lying without evidence is an act of bad faith. Likewise, saying people are 'making up stories' when they actually have faithfully used a tool TOP has provided is an act of bad faith as well. You are becoming shrill & insulting.

Interesting - so, Logan got it wrong. Not so hard to use this tool to get it right, but he prefers to give me instead bad reputation for calling him out. Is this what a hypocrite would do?

[Logen Ninefingers]

Logans response:


Interesting - so, Logan got it wrong. Not so hard to use this tool to get it right, but he prefers to give me instead bad reputation for calling him out. Is this what a hypocrite would do?

You really are a disturbed individual. I hadn't fully realised it before now.

[Daytr]

You really are a disturbed individual. I hadn't fully realised it before now.

You call out BlackPeter when you are doing the same or worse. You constantly complain about people attacking the poster and here you are doing exactly the same.
Hypocrisy reigns.

[Daytr]

No, that's not what's happening AT ALL. BlackPeter is the one on permanent attack, endless personal attacks both within posts and into inboxes via negative Reputation comments. People are starting to fight back, in retaliation, in reply.

And you called both him & I psychopaths on multiple occasions.
You get what you deserve.

[Daytr]

Again: people are starting to fight back, in retaliation, in reply - to the likes of you and BlackPeter and your attempts to bully those people.

I'm not the one calling people psychopaths.
But I am starting to wonder....

[justakiwi]

You are acting like a five year old. I have never in all my life met such a pathetic bunch of whinging, immature little boys. It is not Black Peter and I, who are the bullies, nor is it us who are constantly ruining discussions. It is you, X-men, Logan and now Bull, who joined your attack on me. I am not a bully, but I do call people out, and I make no apologies for that. If I think you deserve a negative rep vote, I'll give you one. 99% of what you post is of zero value - you just jump on other people's bandwagons, and have literally nothing meaningful to contribute.

I am not claiming I am perfect. I get riled up at times, and yes, I can get a little "angsty" but if and when I am wrong, or overstep the line, I apologise. I apologised yesterday for calling Logan a dickhead. Nobody else here ever apologises or owns their "mistakes" so why are you getting on my case all the time?

It is beyond ridiculous. This is the TOP thread. And yet here we are, having yet another backwards and forwards, BS, pointless, immature argument. And yes, I include myself in that statement. I keep buying into the BS, either in defence of others, or in defence of myself, and I should know better.

Grow up the lot of you!




Again: people are starting to fight back, in retaliation, in reply - to the likes of you and BlackPeter and your attempts to bully those people.

[Daytr]

BlackPeter: psychopath.


You are not only a narcissist but you are an extreme hypocrite as well.

You are a bully and that goes hand in hand with being a coward.


This from the caught-out liar. The fake international day trader.


BlackPeter the narcissist leaves a negative Reputation comment calling me a troll. BlackPeter, you're a f'wit.


I think you might be a narcissist. And not a fake internet one, but an actual one.

Really and here just a selection of your comments in the last few days just on this thread. There are plenty of others similar on other threads if we go back a week.
Clean up your act!

Logen Ninefingers and you support this sort of behavior. Disgraceful.

[justakiwi]

Final election poll is here:

https://www.sharetrader.co.nz/showthread.php?12761-ELECTION-POLL-1-week-till-the-election!

[Logen Ninefingers]

Another 'negative reputation' attack by BlackPeter.

[winner69]

Another 'negative reputation' attack by BlackPeter.


You’ve hidden your Reputation on your profile :eek2:

[BlackPeter]

Another 'negative reputation' attack by BlackPeter.

Sigh - you are saying you misbehaved again? Remember - the red marks I am giving are only for trolling, for personal attacks and for spreading misinformation. Ah yes - and for insisting on abusing threads for your personal vendetta.

No reason for you to be proud of.

Pity that you didn't use the chance to stop this non-sense.

[BlackPeter]

OK - back to TOP (here is hoping :) ;

Lets take a big step back and look at the last 30 years in NZ.

Still 30 years ago the NZ education system was the envy of the world, and NZ had the lowest percentage of illiterate people in the OECD. Today more than 1/3rd of our students can't properly read or write when they leave school and overrall our students typically rank close to or at the bottom of international comparisons. Both right wing and left wing governments brought us there - none of them improved our education system, they both screwed it up - hand in hand.

National/ACT used to underfund the system (resulting in rotten schoolinfrastructure and leaving teachers) and Labour/Green by being too incompetent to fix the system and instead politicising it. Throwing money at teachers does not fix leaky buildings, neither does it fix lack of dscipline, lack of respect and a teaching approach without proper guidance for teachers.


Still 30 years ago it was no problem to find anywhere in NZ a GP if you needed one - and in case of an accident emergency departments did look after you without undue delay. These days you can consider yourself lucky to find a GP who is prepared to enroll you and give you an appointment in a handful of weeks - and the waiting times in emergency departments are often 6 hours plus. People are dying because they can't get access to proper medical treatment.

Both National governments and Labour governments did run our health system down, National/ACT by underfunding hospitals and care and Labour/Green by being too incompetent to fix the system. Instead of doing anything useful they created another two useless bureaucracies (a brown and a white variant :) ; Not sure, whether the new system could be made working, but no doubt National will dismantle it as soon as they get into power instead of fixing the system.


And actually - 30 years ago I found (coming from Europe) that NZ roads are not too bad. These days they are more a collection of potholes. Both National governments and Labour governments did run our infrastructure down, National/ACT by underfunding it and Labour/Green by being too incompetent to fix it. Apparantly Labour always first needs to install an expensive bureaucracy before they do anything useful, and until that could happen National is back and undues what Labour did without fixing the real problems.

No matter whether we will end up with a National / ACT / NZF government (though more likely) or a Labour / Green / Te Pati govenment (less likely, but possible), one thing will be sure - they will break their promises (they always do ...) - and they will keep to continue eroding our systems.

30 years ago our rivers and lakes have been clean - and both National/ACT as well as Labour/Green governments allowed their degradation. Try today to swim in one of our rivers ... and you have a good chance to get sick.

30 years ago we had clean fresh water coming out of our taps. Today it is basically treated sewage. Thanks to National/ACT and Labour /Green working together to allow our farmers to destroy our land, our water and our environment.


Maybe its time to stop this stupid game to always swap from the left to the right and than back to the left. Nothing is gained by it, money is wasted and our land goes down the gurgler.


I voted this time for common sense and a party in the centre: TOP ... if they make it into parliament (here is hoping) they don't need to worry about stupid ideology, but they can focus on the issues.

[mike2020]

Lols. IF they make it in, with their one vote, what a difference they can and will make. Another wasted vote. I see multiple placards around town for the NZ party, loyal? Grief, I am so tempted to knock on the door and ask if they know the harm their wasted vote might cause. Pick a side.

[mike2020]

Yeah send a message, that message is I'm so unhappy it has spilled over into my decision making process enough I admire Brian Tamariki.

[mike2020]

And yeah that's not a spelling mistake.

[justakiwi]

You're not getting it. How do you think ACT , the Greens or NZF, initially got their "foot in the door?" People, disillusioned with the status quo (and by that I mean National v Labour), started looking for alternatives. They saw something they liked, took a leap of faith and voted for them. It took time for that interest to build into momentum, but now look where those parties are. Whether you like them individually or not, they are now "players" in the system, and yes, they absolutely can, and do, make a difference. Depending on your perspective, that difference can be either positive or negative. But either way, it inserts more parties into parliament, holds the status quo parties more accountable, and presents an opportunity to drive change. That is what TOP could potentially achieve over time. But for that to happen someone has to vote for them. Might as well be Black Peter and I - along with others who see something worth supporting in TOP. Sure, they may not gain a seat this time round - in which case you will claim "wasted vote," but our votes will not be wasted. Every vote for a minor party (and to be clear, I'm not talking about the ridiculous fringe parties that should literally not even be allowed to run), is, at the very least, a statement. It is a way to peak people's interest, and a way to stimulate "discussion" around what is wrong with our political system and what needs to happen if we don't want to spend the rest of our lives, simply rinsing and repeating. Every vote for TOP, or another minor party, is also one less vote for the parties, which some of us, are not even remotely happy with.

Your comments are disrespectful, judgmental, and misguided. They are also completely unnecessary. Do you seriously think ridiculing others for the way they choose to vote, is going to make them change their minds? That strategy has been the go-to for everyone here who is anti-labour. How many people do you think you have converted? That's right .... none :laugh:

On a different note, I think it is time the 5% rule was changed to something closer to 3%. That would give parties like TOP, and others, a good chance of getting a foot in the door. That can only be a good thing for NZ politics. It would also, potentially (over time) provide a coalition alternative to NZF. Which should please at least a few of you.



Lols. IF they make it in, with their one vote, what a difference they can and will make. Another wasted vote. I see multiple placards around town for the NZ party, loyal? Grief, I am so tempted to knock on the door and ask if they know the harm their wasted vote might cause. Pick a side.

[mike2020]

Fair comments there JK and 3% would be a better number. I just think if it is as close an election as it is looking we would all be better off with a clear winner.

I am anti labor, very. I have family in labor in Wellington, how that person has changed. From a caring individual to a smug bully.

I would like to say, this is an election thread, it's ok in my opinion to have an opinion, not like the OCA thread which was ruined there for a while.

Hit me :t_up:

[justakiwi]

Maybe. Or maybe it is just how we have been indoctrinated to think over the years. Maybe it's actually not true. Just a thought.


Fair comments there JK and 3% would be a better number. I just think if it is as close an election as it is looking we would all be better off with a clear winner.

I am anti labor, very. I have family in labor in Wellington, how that person has changed. From a caring individual to a smug bully.

I would like to say, this is an election thread, it's ok in my opinion to have an opinion, not like the OCA thread which was ruined there for a while.

Hit me :t_up:

[BlackPeter]

Lols. IF they make it in, with their one vote, what a difference they can and will make. Another wasted vote. I see multiple placards around town for the NZ party, loyal? Grief, I am so tempted to knock on the door and ask if they know the harm their wasted vote might cause. Pick a side.

You seem to be easily amused, but hey, this is better then the troll invasion we used to have here just a couple of days before :):

Look - if I know that crashing the car on the left side of the road is bad and that crashing it on the right side of the road is bad as well, I don't need to do either. There is always a better choice - like e.g. just staying on the road and getting forward instead. Same story with political camps. Neither left/green nor right/neo-liberal did in the last handful of decades improve our situation as a country. No need to reward them for their failings. One side always underinvests in our future and the other side wasted the money instead of using it for our good.

The wasted vote is only from the people who vote for what they see as the smaller evil - the result is that whatever we get will be evil. If that's what you are going for - you are welcome - go and waste your vote, but others might have higher ambitions.

No need to reward the politicians from both left and right who failed us before - again and again. They have no plan to improve our lot this time. Left wants to waste money and Right wants to keep underfunding already broken systems. Both does not work. And yes, as untamed said - it takes time to grow a new party, but others did it before and I am sure at some stage we will have as well a strong liberal voice back in parliament.

... ah yes - and don't forget - if Raf Manji makes it into parliament on the electoral vote, he is likely to bring at least 1 or 2 others with him (based on the recent poll). That's not bad. Look how far Seymur managed to come, and he was initially really the only ACT MP.

[mike2020]

Fair call. Appreciate your perspectives. We do seem to vote for change, we have been doing it as far back as I can remember which is the 70s and not much has changed, just a lower standard of almost everything. I feel we are on a precipice at the moment and the standards Labor uphold when in opposition seem to be absent when in power. The list of wrongdoings is too long.

[justakiwi]

We vote for a change of party from National to Labour (and back again), but we have never voted for a significant change, away from the two party system we have been used to for decades. I get that there is justification for the current angst towards Labour, but people have short memories. National has failed us too, and will again no doubt.

The "precipice" is not simply the fear of Labour getting back in. It is the fear that NZ is doomed to continuing the ineffective Labour/National cycle, forever.


Fair call. Appreciate your perspectives. We do seem to vote for change, we have been doing it as far back as I can remember which is the 70s and not much has changed, just a lower standard of almost everything. I feel we are on a precipice at the moment and the standards Labor uphold when in opposition seem to be absent when in power. The list of wrongdoings is too long.

[Bjauck]

Fair call. Appreciate your perspectives. We do seem to vote for change, we have been doing it as far back as I can remember which is the 70s and not much has changed, just a lower standard of almost everything. I feel we are on a precipice at the moment and the standards Labor uphold when in opposition seem to be absent when in power. The list of wrongdoings is too long.
NZ has voted for change in the past. We are among the oldest democracies (one adult; one vote.) We were among the first to vote to introduce compulsory public education and a raft of social welfare reforms.

We can press the reform button again, and rebuild our social democracy, so that being born into the poorest decile no longer hinders your potential from flourishing. I switched my vote to Top. It seems to value young adults and is prepared to tackle the required major reform. The ball needs to start rolling….

[BlackPeter]

I had yesterday the somewhat questionable pleasure to attend the Press Leaders Debate in person (yes, the one where one Chris was sick and the other Chris found no replacement timeslot in his schedule - apparantly too many babies to kiss).

I was looking for an appropriate thread to put this in ... and which thread could be more appropriate than the one from the party which they should have invited, but didn't?

OK - unpolitical observations:

Lots of police plus a large number of hired gorillas everywhere. Didn't knew police had so many officers in Christchurch. Given that they all have been in or in front of the townhall - this would have been the time to commit a crime somewhere else in town (sorry, too late now :) );
Clearly - the audience was just there to fill the seats as background picture for the politicians. We had to be there early, all herded into the foyer and having to stand for 30 minutes or so before they opened the seating areas. However - plenty of TV cameras monitoring the audience during this time. Assume TVNZ filled its archives with crowd pictures for the next decades.
Quite ridiculous setup of the stage. The audience did sit behind the politicians and could watch during the so called discussion only their backsides. Ever heard a politician talking through their butt? This is how it felt.
Quite mediocre acustics - I assume at home on the TV it sounded better, but the audicence had to deal with significant back ground noice and a somewhat ineffective sound system. It didn't help either that the upper part of the town hall was empty - which gives very hard acoustics.


What the candidates said has been widely reported, so no need to repeat that. However - some impressions might be interesting:


Both Marama (Green) and the Te Pati candidate came across as incredibly racist and arrogant. It sort of felt that cis white people should be grateful for being tolerated, but clearly are not wanted to contribute to politics.
It didn't help that Marama seems to have brought her very own group of claqueures - maybe 20 to 25 people in a group following some signal either jumping up (or lifting their hands) for intense clapping ... and as well stopping in sync - and they had been as well trained to shout in disgust when sometimes one of the other speakers said something their conductor considered as un-PC. Not quite sure who gave the signal - at one stage it looked like Marama was communicating with them directly (which was quiet funny, given that she turned her back to us and was waving backwards with the hands), but I didn't observe enough of these signals to be able to claim correlation or causation. Pretty sure, though they had in the crowd or on the side some claqueure capo doing the organisation.
The other party leaders or reps had to work for themselves to get applause - did they forgot to bring their claqueures?
in general not a real discussion - it more felt like the moderator (Tova) was pushing a button and the candidates just came up with the song they practiced before which was closest to the theme of the question. Pity that - hardly any useful discussion between candidates - more like an examen setup with the candidates however freuently missing the essence of the question.
some good questions, little useful answers.
It feels difficult for me to say that, but from the participating leaders did David come across as one of the more moderate leaders. Obviously - they didn't invite moderate parties like TOP, so lets put that in perspective.
Ah yes, and the moderator (Tova) asked what the candidates program for Christchurch would be. Pretty telling - none of the four invited parties had any program for Christchuch. Maybe, they should have invited TOP into the discussion, shouldn't they?



OK enough rant.

Pity they invited a Maori splinter party but not a mainstream liberal party (like TOP) into the discussion. Are the media biassed against liberals :) ?

Pity as well that the Greens felt that their arguments are that weak that they need to bring their own claqueures.

Pity that both Green as well as Te Pati did a lot to increase the racial divide in our society.

Still an interesting experience (even if my back still hurts from first the forced standing and than the long sitting) - but overall a pity affair.

Looking forward to the next election round with TOP being the shining star in the discussion :) ;

[Logen Ninefingers]

Info for voters here -

https://twitter.com/cjsbishop/status/1712235263521640898

[justakiwi]

Or maybe, if those people who want to vote for TOP, just ignored the propaganda, followed their convictions, and gave TOP their vote - Raf might just win Ilam.

All this so-called "advice" (as per your link) is nothing more than an attempt to manipulate people into voting National, by injecting fear (that Labour might win). It is all BS.

Vote for the damned party you want to vote for, and don't let anyone make you feel guilty for doing so.


Info for voters here -

https://twitter.com/cjsbishop/status/1712235263521640898

[Logen Ninefingers]

Desperation from Manji? His comments appear to be disingenuous and misleading.

https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/heather-du-plessis-allan-drive/audio/sarah-pallett-hamish-campbell-and-raf-manji-ilam-electoral-candidates-on-tops-chances-of-getting-into-parliament/

TOP's Raf Manji claims Labour and National have 'pulled back' in Ilam electorate

Thu, 12 Oct 2023, 6:47PM

'TOP leader Raf Manji says Labour and National have 'pulled back' from the Christchurch seat of Ilam, paving the way for him to get into Parliament.

Labour's Ilam candidate Sarah Pallett has dismissed Manji's claims as 'rubbish', and claims Labour is still in it to win it.

"We've been campaigning so hard, and it's a tiny bit insulting to my volunteers, who've really put in the hard yards and continue to do so- they've been out all day today. I'm just bemused."

National's Hamish Campbell says this is a 'desperate' claim from Raf Manji, as National has been working to bring in votes.

"If you drive through Illam, you'll see that it's absolutely covered in blue signs. We're working right up til we can no longer campaign, which is midnight on Friday. We're going strong."

Raf Manji is still defending his earlier statements, saying he's not seeing a lot of action on the ground from both major parties.

"We're out every day, and we've been out every day for the last month. Yes, we see billboards, but we're not seeing a lot on the ground. I'm sure there's staff doorknocking, but we're out and about."'

[BlackPeter]

Desperation from Manji? His comments appear to be disingenuous and misleading.


Looks like its desperation all over the place ... just not where you are trying to project it.

David Seymour looked really concerned in Christchurch on Tuesday about ACT's polls dropping by the day, Luxon (who has a poll problem as well) was yesterday so desperate in the debate that he had to throw mud and only survived the debate by robotically telling the PM to stay calm lacking any sensible arguments.

But yes, I can certainly understand your desperation - the venum spread by right wing trolls in this election campaign definitely damaged the right camp and did a lot to move the voters who Te Pati and the Greens used to drive towards the right back to the centre and the left. Mean spirited right wing trolls well might have killed off Nationals chances to win this election.

Interesting games - lets see which side is better in getting rid of voters, certainly fun to watch :);

But hey - the good news is - there is no need to support either the right camp, which unfortunately didn't rid itself of some meanspirited and venomspitting trolls, nor is there a need to vote for the left camp which might have nice sounding aspirational goals, but which proved already over the last 6 years that they are not able to implement what they are promising.

The easy solution is - stay in the middle, ignore the ideology driven left and the ideology driven right and vote instead for politicians with common sense and problem solving skills looking to move the country forwards instead of crashing it again right or left.

Vote for the Liberals. Vote for TOP. Try it - you will feel much better :) ;

[Logen Ninefingers]

When you see people react by just dismissing credible news stories and the honest thoughts of the actual candidates, and then carrying on again about 'trolls', it is disquieting.

Exactly who is a troll and who isn't is simply a matter of perspective.

Any contrary thoughts regarding TOP are dismissed as 'trolling', contrary views on TOP policies are described as 'debunked', contrary thoughts on the motivations of TOP politicians are described as 'misinformation'. Very, very unfortunate and sad, and quite hard to understand.

I do think what has happened here of the last couple of weeks is not right, particularly the fact that one person has been goaded and goaded and now won't be posting any longer. I don't think Left wing posters can take the moral high-ground on any of it, however much they might like to. They certainly have not called out bad behaviour amongst their own, in fact - they have often enabled it.

[justakiwi]

When you see people react by just dismissing credible news stories and the honest thoughts of the actual candidates, and then carrying on again about 'trolls', it is disquieting.

Exactly who is a troll and who isn't is simply a matter of perspective.

Any contrary thoughts regarding TOP are dismissed as 'trolling', contrary views on TOP policies are described as 'debunked', contrary thoughts on the motivations of TOP politicians are described as 'misinformation'. Very, very unfortunate and sad, and quite hard to understand.

No idea who you are replying to, but your interpretation of both BP's and my posts re TOP have clearly been misinterpreted. Neither of us have done any more than present our personal opinions on the party. We have simply pointed out some of the reasons we have decided to support TOP, and I don't believe either of us have done that in a disrespectful way at all. Unfortunately, throughout these political discussions, it has been very evident that the intolerance towards others has in fact come more from the National/ACT supporters, than from anyone else. They are the ones who have referred to us as "bottom feeders" ad infinitum.


I do think what has happened here of the last couple of weeks is not right, particularly the fact that one person has been goaded and goaded and now won't be posting any longer. I don't think Left wing posters can take the moral high-ground on any of it, however much they might like to. They certainly have not called out bad behaviour amongst their own, in fact - they have often enabled it.

The "one person" you are no doubt referring to, brought it on himself. He was already in the dog box long before the current discussion became "heated." It was literally nothing to do with BPs rep votes - Azz just decided to make it about that. I myself, had given him neg rep votes. Some people just don't like being called out on their own behaviour, so they turn it around and try to blame it on someone else. Feel sorry for him if you wish, but don't be that gullible.

Vote for whoever you wish to. That is what I expect everyone to do.

[iceman]

From the Herald today:

Ilam

One of the biggest shocks of the 2020 election was senior National MP Gerry Brownlee losing the seat he had held safely since 1996. Labour candidate and midwife Sarah Pallet won it by 3463 votes. Brownlee is going list only, leaving Pallet up against medical researcher Hamish Campbell, and the leader of The Opportunities Party (TOP), Raf Manji, who ran second in the seat against Brownlee in 2017 as an independent. National has eschewed any electoral accommodation with TOP. If Manji won Ilam, the party would not need to reach the five per cent threshold. An early poll by Curia in August put Campbell well ahead on 43 per cent. Manji and Pallett were effectively tied for second on 18 per cent and 20 per cent but about 20 per cent were undecided. No major poll in the past three months has put TOP over 3 per cent. Campbell is No 63 on National’s list and Pallet is No 51 on Labour’s.

[Daytr]

When you see people react by just dismissing credible news stories and the honest thoughts of the actual candidates, and then carrying on again about 'trolls', it is disquieting.

Exactly who is a troll and who isn't is simply a matter of perspective.

Any contrary thoughts regarding TOP are dismissed as 'trolling', contrary views on TOP policies are described as 'debunked', contrary thoughts on the motivations of TOP politicians are described as 'misinformation'. Very, very unfortunate and sad, and quite hard to understand.

I do think what has happened here of the last couple of weeks is not right, particularly the fact that one person has been goaded and goaded and now won't be posting any longer. I don't think Left wing posters can take the moral high-ground on any of it, however much they might like to. They certainly have not called out bad behaviour amongst their own, in fact - they have often enabled it.

You have to be one of the most hypocritical posters on here. You regularly attack the subject person or the poster.

You recently just write a post & I quote in its entirety.

"Hipkins is a pathetic human being"

[Logen Ninefingers]

You have to be one of the most hypocritical posters on here. You regularly attack the subject person or the poster.

You recently just write a post & I quote in its entirety.

"Hipkins is a pathetic human being"

You just seem to follow me around the threads, always in attack mode.

If you can’t differentiate between posters here and politicians then I can’t help you. I’ve seen plenty of invective directed at Seymour and Luxon, and I certainly stand by comment regarding Hipkins. You are just one of these types who always seem to take the moral high ground.

[Panda-NZ-]

Is there a ban on talking about politics tomorrow? That will be nice.

[Logen Ninefingers]

Is there a ban on talking about politics tomorrow? That will be nice.

Why would there be?

[iceman]

Is there a ban on talking about politics tomorrow? That will be nice.

There are rules about posting anything that is intended to influence how people vote from midnight before election day until 7 PM on election day. There has been discussion about this here on ST in the past and it was agreed to adhere to this rule, to show respect to the owner of the site. I suggest we do the same now.
https://elections.nz/guidance-and-rules/advertising-and-campaigning/social-media/

[BlackPeter]

There are rules about posting anything that is intended to influence how people vote from midnight before election day until 7 PM on election day. There has been discussion about this here on ST in the past and it was agreed to adhere to this rule, to show respect to the owner of the site. I suggest we do the same now.
https://elections.nz/guidance-and-rules/advertising-and-campaigning/social-media/


Cheers - worthwhile reminder.

BTW - it is a rule from the electoral commission - and if people don't follow, the commission does have some teeth ;) ;

https://elections.nz/guidance-and-rules/advertising-and-campaigning/rules-once-voting-starts-and-on-election-day/

Election day rules of the electorate commission:


You can’t influence voters
Don’t influence voters or tell them to vote or not vote for a candidate or party.

This rule applies to websites and social media
Don’t post anything to social media or a website on election day that could influence voters. Also make sure your profile pictures on social media don’t include anything that could influence voters.

You may only keep existing election material up on a website or social media if all the following apply.

You don’t update it on election day
It’s only available to people who choose to access it
The site isn’t advertised

[Daytr]

You just seem to follow me around the threads, always in attack mode.

If you can’t differentiate between posters here and politicians then I can’t help you. I’ve seen plenty of invective directed at Seymour and Luxon, and I certainly stand by comment regarding Hipkins. You are just one of these types who always seem to take the moral high ground.

Thanks. LOL 🤣

[BlackPeter]

You just seem to follow me around the threads, always in attack mode.

If you can’t differentiate between posters here and politicians then I can’t help you. I’ve seen plenty of invective directed at Seymour and Luxon, and I certainly stand by comment regarding Hipkins. You are just one of these types who always seem to take the moral high ground.

You have a habit of offending and attacking people and of spreading misinformation (aka lying). Quite rotten. Not surprising you have to hide your bad reputation - but this won't make it any better. Your name will always be stained, but isn't the name-donor of your avatar a reckless crook anyway, starting his dark career with murdering a friend and later nearly killing his father? Quite telling.

Anyway - nothing wrong with decent posters calling you out for your often quite unacceptable behaviour.

[justakiwi]

Pot calling the kettle black in my humble opinion.


You just seem to follow me around the threads, always in attack mode.


Someone has to.


You are just one of these types who always seem to take the moral high ground.

[Logen Ninefingers]

You have a habit of offending and attacking people and of spreading misinformation (aka lying). Quite rotten. Not surprising you have to hide your bad reputation - but this won't make it any better. Your name will always be stained, but isn't the name-donor of your avatar a reckless crook anyway, starting his dark career with murdering a friend and later nearly killing his father? Quite telling.

Anyway - nothing wrong with decent posters calling you out for your often quite unacceptable behaviour.

Lying about what exactly? Actual news stories with comments by the candidates are ‘misinformation’ now? Actual TOP policies are ‘misinformation’? Bizarre.

The extraordinary thing about you is that your allegations regarding ‘trolling’ and ‘misinformation’ are the very definition of the term gaslighting.

I’ve hidden the ‘reputation’ because it is quite clear that you use it only to intimidate and harass others. I have decided not to let it bother me, I’ll just turn it off and not bother about your repugnant behaviour. You’ve obviously successfully baited and trolled others using ‘reputation’ in the past, but I’m not going to let it worry me.

I’ve come to understand that you are heavily emotionally invested in ‘TOP’ in a way that isn’t healthy, and have created a certain reality for yourself, complete with mysterious and ill-defined ‘Liberals’.

[777]

Lying about what exactly? Actual news stories with comments by the candidates are ‘misinformation’ now? Actual TOP policies are ‘misinformation’? Bizarre.

The extraordinary thing about you is that your allegations regarding ‘trolling’ and ‘misinformation’ are the very definition of the term gaslighting.

I’ve hidden the ‘reputation’ because it is quite clear that you use it only to intimidate and harass others. I have decided not to let it bother me, I’ll just turn it off and not bother about your repugnant behaviour. You’ve obviously successfully baited and trolled others using ‘reputation’ in the past, but I’m not going to let it worry me.

I’ve come to understand that you are heavily emotionally invested in ‘TOP’ in a way that isn’t healthy, and have created a certain reality for yourself, complete with mysterious and ill-defined ‘Liberals’.

He is having a day for for giving out bad reputations.

[Daytr]

Lying about what exactly? Actual news stories with comments by the candidates are ‘misinformation’ now? Actual TOP policies are ‘misinformation’? Bizarre.

The extraordinary thing about you is that your allegations regarding ‘trolling’ and ‘misinformation’ are the very definition of the term gaslighting.

I’ve hidden the ‘reputation’ because it is quite clear that you use it only to intimidate and harass others. I have decided not to let it bother me, I’ll just turn it off and not bother about your repugnant behaviour. You’ve obviously successfully baited and trolled others using ‘reputation’ in the past, but I’m not going to let it worry me.

I’ve come to understand that you are heavily emotionally invested in ‘TOP’ in a way that isn’t healthy, and have created a certain reality for yourself, complete with mysterious and ill-defined ‘Liberals’.

Posting a zillion times a day is what I would day is particularly unhealthy.

So is this the last we hear from you as you promised and now that you have volunteered months of your time to your cause?

[Logen Ninefingers]

Manji and TOP have had a fizzer.

[iceman]

Manji and TOP have had a fizzer.

As expected. BP & JAK amongst others, have wasted their vote & had no say in the outcome of this election. An outcome that is great by the way

[Patrick11]

Back to the drawing board for TOP. Do like Raf as leader but going for the student vote didn't work.

[justakiwi]

If there had been any likelihood that the final result would have been a close vote between National and Labour, then yes, you could be forgiven for accusing me of wasting my vote. That was never on the cards however. This was always going to be a landslide vote against Labour.

My vote was never going to make a difference to the outcome, so I voted for a party whose values align with mine, and refused to vote for the parties whose don’t. Time will tell whether this is the “great outcome” you believe it to be today. But I can tell you one thing for certain. When this new government falls out of favour - as it eventually will, because that’s how it works in this country - I won’t rush over here to rub anyone’s nose in it, or ridicule anyone for who they voted for this time. Because I am an adult and I respect everyone’s right to make their own voting decisions.

Enjoy your celebrations today - and I genuinely mean that.


As expected. BP & JAK amongst others, have wasted their vote & had no say in the outcome of this election. An outcome that is great by the way

[Bjauck]

As expected. BP & JAK amongst others, have wasted their vote & had no say in the outcome of this election. An outcome that is great by the way
The curse of the 5% threshold.

I think Labour’s goose was well cooked when Ardern quit. However I guess it was a question by which method it was going to be cooked. It turns out it was stuffed and burnt.

[iceman]

JAK my comment isn’t about “rubbing anyone’s nose in it”. No need to be so defensive. Thankfully we live in a democracy where we can all freely cast our vote as we see fit.
The last few pages on this thread have seen strong cheerleading from a few posters for TOP & Manji, suggesting they had a real chance. I give him credit for a strong result in Ilam, but he was never close to a position where he might bring a TOP MP to parliament.

[justakiwi]

With all due respect, because you know that I consider you a friend, it kind of is. I was under no illusions that TOP was likely to win a seat. Yes, I did hope there might be a "miracle" in Ilam, but it wasn't something I was genuinely anticipating. It was, however worth a try, and I have zero regrets for supporting a party that I believe in. Isn't that what we all did?

I would just like to see us now, find a way to continue these discussions, on a general basis, rather than a continued us v them basis. I think we have had more than enough of that over the last God knows how many months. There is no need for it now. The election is done and dusted, as is the result. I genuinely hope the new government proves me wrong. I really do. Because I am one of those people struggling right now, who does not fit the "squeezed middle" criteria, and I need to hope there is some light at the end of the tunnel, not just for NZ, but for me as an individual.


JAK my comment isn’t about “rubbing anyone’s nose in it”. No need to be so defensive. The last few pages on this thread have seen strong cheerleading from a few posters for TOP & Manji, suggesting they had a real chance. I give him credit for a strong result in Ilam, but he was never close to a position where he might bring a TOP MP to parliament.

[iceman]

With all due respect, because you know that I consider you a friend, it kind of is. I was under no illusions that TOP was likely to win a seat. Yes, I did hope there might be a "miracle" in Ilam, but it wasn't something I was genuinely anticipating. It was, however worth a try, and I have zero regrets for supporting a party that I believe in. Isn't that what we all did?

I would just like to see us now, find a way to continue these discussions, on a general basis, rather than a continued us v them basis. I think we have had more than enough of that over the last God knows how many months. There is no need for it now. The election is done and dusted, as is the result. I genuinely hope the new government proves me wrong. I really do. Because I am one of those people struggling right now, who does not fit the "squeezed middle" criteria, and I need to hope there is some light at the end of the tunnel, not just for NZ, but for me as an individual.

Then I apologise. That was not my intention.

[Logen Ninefingers]

BlackPeter is obviously really hurting right now. To go from believing that Ralf Manji was going to take Ilam, to seeing TOPs chances vaporised….that must be tough to take.
The question will be whether Manji sticks around with TOP, or has another crack at getting on the Christchurch city council, or heads home to England.

[justakiwi]

I do know it wasn't your intention. I just felt I needed to address it. Thank you.


Then I apologise. That was not my intention.

[justakiwi]

You just can't help yourself can you. Be an adult for once.


BlackPeter is obviously really hurting right now. To go from believing that Ralf Manji was going to take Ilam, to seeing TOPs chances vaporised….that must be tough to take.

[Logen Ninefingers]

You just can't help yourself can you. Be an adult for once.

My heart goes out to both of you at this difficult time, and all other ‘liberals’ out there as well. 😂

[justakiwi]

That really helped. We are both currently curled up in the corner in the foetal position, crying like a babies.

Not!

You are ridiculous. You have a wonderful and very happy day buddy :)





My heart goes out to both of you at this difficult time, and all other ‘liberals’ out there as well. 

[BlackPeter]

So - elections are over ... and hardly anybody in this forum seems to care for Nationals and ACT's waferthin win, Labours disastrous loss and the Greens or Te Patis Pyrrhus victory.

Interesting to see most of the comments on the TOP thread. Looks like TOP made an impression :) - which is good. As we all know, there is no such thing as negative publicity :) ;

Looking at the results for TOP: Party vote up by 50% - from 1.4% to 2.1%. Respectable, but obviously not enough to get a seat in parliament.

Raf did well in Ilam, but clearly - a cup of tea (as offered by National to David Seymour when ACT was in the doldrums) would have been more helpful than Chris Luxon excluding a coalition with TOP. Se la vie. Chris Luxon clearly wanted to be dependent on Winston Peters instead of having options with whom to go ... and I recon the coming years (probably already weeks) will show, whether he choose wisely.

Just imagine TOP and NZF in parliament and Chris could tie up a government tomorrow. Without this option Winston will play his hand to extract the absolute maximum for himself, and we will need to wait ways into November before we have a government.

Quite interesting - we've seen yesterday a blue wave as well as a green wave swapping over the land, and the only party combining blue and green - while improving - still didn't made it into parliament.

I think that TOP will need to work on its message - so far most people don't seem to be able to even put them correctly into the political spectrum (unfortunately it is only a very small number of voters who bother to read parties policies on the internet).

I think as well that they might need to work on their youth policy. While I believe that the concept of investing into our youth is crucial - the policies as stated are so far a bit crude ... and clearly easy to misunderstand.

Enough said about TOP.

Talking about wasted votes and sending messages: a vote is basically a message to politicians. Obviously - it looks many people didn't voted for the party which best represented their political views, but they voted tactically.

The farmers in the 2020 elections voted tactically, and they got what they deserved. Their tactics gave Labour for one term the absolute majority and - just look what an amazing result the land got for this tactical idiocy.

I prefer to give my vote to the party which best represents my political views. Better sending the right message instead of sending for tactical reasons the wrong message and empowering that way people to do things you don't want. This would be worse than just wasting ones vote. Ask the farmers :);

[Aaron]

No surprises really. I was hoping for something of a miracle for TOP but really no significant difference between the new govt or the last one. I personally will be better off under National all things considered.

Surprising a party like NZ First garners 6.5% of the vote with nothing to offer the country, I guess we get the govt we deserve.

Hopefully Chris Luxon can bring the nation together but maybe not the gap between the haves and the bottom feeders.

Maybe Logen can get back to work now. Not sure what he does for a living but he seems to have a lot of time for posting on here.

[Logen Ninefingers]

TOP couldn’t get it done, their strategy was flawed from the get-go, the policies were a shambles. Sensible people saw right through them.

[fungus pudding]

No surprises really. I was hoping for something of a miracle for TOP but really no significant difference between the new govt or the last one. I personally will be better off under National all things considered.
I guess we get the govt we deserve.



An oft heard and completely ridiculous saying.
We all get the same govt; yet we don't all deserve the same fate.

[Panda-NZ-]

Maybe Logen can get back to work now. Not sure what he does for a living but he seems to have a lot of time for posting on here.

Luxon's communications director.

There will be an excuse for every promise not "delivered"... Now where's my 20 bucks.

Here's one for free - Labour didn't tell us how bad the books were.

[nztx]

Luxon's communications director.

There will be an excuse for every promise not "delivered"... Now where's my 20 bucks.

Here's one for free - Labour didn't tell us how bad the books were.


Here's another excuse .. seeing as you've gotten so used to happily swallowing them from Labour
Your $20 will be an IOU for when Labour next get into power, if what remains doesn't implode & go into
recess first, as the factions start practicing their knife strokes to see how they can thinly dice & slice
what made it through the 2023 Bloodbath :)

[kiwical]

As expected. BP & JAK amongst others, have wasted their vote & had no say in the outcome of this election. An outcome that is great by the way I agree with others. This "wasted vote" mentality is just not correct. By that argument isn't everyone that didn't vote for the winning party is a "wasted vote"?

[BlackPeter]

As expected. BP & JAK amongst others, have wasted their vote & had no say in the outcome of this election. An outcome that is great by the way

Very sad post.

Actually, I thought you might be a deeper thinker, but clearly the right wing trolls took over your better judgement :);

Look, a vote is a message to the people who apply for the job to govern.

If I give my vote to the party closest to my views, than the message is clear for everybody to see (and, btw - I am sure that analysts from all coleurs are currently checking how votes have been splitted .... and as well analysing the programs of the parties who gained votes, but didn't made it into parliament. Important to identify future coalition partners - and hey, Green policies moved into Nationals as well as Labours programs long before Green made it into parliament (but after Green stood for election). I expect similar with Liberal policies.

If you give however your vote to a party you don't like, but which will make the 5%, than the only thing what you get is what you deserve - the same old cr*p you always got: education system further down, health system further down, infrastructure further down, environment further destroyed ... and the elected politicians will even think they did everything right, given the message you sent them with your vote, won't they?

Whoever gives his (or her vote) to he second best option just because they are afraid to waste their vote - these are the people who wasted their vote. Sadly - these are as well the people who are responsible that things won't improve.

Remember - Education system - below average, health system - overstretched, infrastructure in tatters, environment - destroyed. Same story no matter whether it was a Labour or a National government over the last 3 decades - and no doubt, in three years this trend will continue. This turn: Labour was unable to fix the problems National created by underfunding and made them worse (cheers, Labour), now its Nationals turn again to keep underfunding all essential systems and starve them to make sure they keep going down.

Clearly - anybody who voted for National/ACT/NZF or Labour /Green/Te Pati as second best solution wasted their vote this time unless they want to destroy the base of this country.

I didn't :t_up:

[Logen Ninefingers]

If TOP has managed to get across the threshold, they would only be either propping up a Labour government or sitting in opposition.
TOP are not the answer.

[justakiwi]

Clearly you have not actually read their policies and general philosophy then.

TOP is passionate about reducing political tribalism. New Zealand is slipping towards a more divided left/right. Division prevents collaborative solutions, and it's more important than ever for everyone to work together. TOP is not left or right, but forward looking and future focused. Our role is to continue to work collaboratively to push for smart policy that will benefit New Zealand's future.




If TOP has managed to get across the threshold, they would only be either propping up a Labour government or sitting in opposition.
TOP are not the answer.

[BlackPeter]

If TOP has managed to get across the threshold, they would only be either propping up a Labour government or sitting in opposition.
TOP are not the answer.

Quite stupid post. Your capacity of reflection seems to be well below your desire to annoy.

If I use your trickle of thought .... clearly - both National as well as ACT have been the last 6 years just sitting in opposition, i.e. none of them has been the answer. Why did anybody vote for them, where it clearly was just a wasted vote?

For some funny reason some people still thought it fit to vote for them. Have you been one of these clueless creatures?

And lets face it - we don't even know now, whether ACT and National are "the answer" this time. 20% of the votes still outstanding can change a lot ... and hey - if Labour offers Winston the bigger baubles, he might go with them - and again - neither National nor ACT would be the answer - why vote for them, if its anyway just Winston to decide? Waste of time and vote according to Logan, wasn't it?

It appears that you don't understand the purpose of an election. It is not to predict the winner and vote for them, whoever they might be, but it is to vote for the party which is best representing your views. You should have voted for the NZ troll party. Have you?

And talking about timeframes ... it took the Green Party 30 years from inception (in the 1970íes) to get into parliament (I think 1999) ... TOP exists only for 7 years or so, i.e. they are doing pretty well so far, and I am sure they can do this faster than the Green party did.

Ah yes - and Winston didn't gave up last time when he didn't made it - and this time he is (again) allowed to pick the PM :);

That's something to strive for ...

[jonu]

Quite stupid post. Your capacity of reflection seems to be well below your desire to annoy.

If I use your trickle of thought .... clearly - both National as well as ACT have been the last 6 years just sitting in opposition, i.e. none of them has been the answer. Why did anybody vote for them, where it clearly was just a wasted vote?

For some funny reason some people still thought it fit to vote for them. Have you been one of these clueless creatures?

And lets face it - we don't even know now, whether ACT and National are "the answer" this time. 20% of the votes still outstanding can change a lot ... and hey - if Labour offers Winston the bigger baubles, he might go with them - and again - neither National nor ACT would be the answer - why vote for them, if its anyway just Winston to decide? Waste of time and vote according to Logan, wasn't it?

It appears that you don't understand the purpose of an election. It is not to predict the winner and vote for them, whoever they might be, but it is to vote for the party which is best representing your views. You should have voted for the NZ troll party. Have you?

And talking about timeframes ... it took the Green Party 30 years from inception (in the 1970íes) to get into parliament (I think 1999) ... TOP exists only for 7 years or so, i.e. they are doing pretty well so far, and I am sure they can do this faster than the Green party did.

Ah yes - and Winston didn't gave up last time when he didn't made it - and this time he is (again) allowed to pick the PM :);

That's something to strive for ...

Your knowledge of NZ political history has again been exposed BlackPeter.

[Logen Ninefingers]

‘TOP is not Left or Right’….if that were the case, they’d simply sit outside government, vote in favour of any bills that they like, and have their MP’s put up bills to be drawn out of the hat.

But in order to implement a portion of their policy platform, they would have to go into coalition with either the major Left wing party or the major Right wing party. At that point they would demonstrably be enabling either a Left wing or a Right wing government, and with that the policy platform of the major Left or Right party. And that would be noted and judged accordingly by the public.

TOP may claim to be ‘not Left or Right’, just as a Duck may claim to be a Goose. External commentators can do their own analysis, carefully and objectively study TOP’s policies, and draw their own conclusions about whether they are truly ‘not Left or Right’. People that gormlessly just accept whatever TOP says purely at face value probably need help tying their shoe laces.

Interesting that BP was extremely confident about TOP’s chances in Ilam and of getting over the threshold, claimed that so-called ‘liberals’ would be flocking to TOP in droves, claimed that the so-called ‘far right’ were “worried” about TOP…..yet now labels other more astute posters “stupid”. Remarkable stuff.

[Getty]

So Top lacked enough appeal to get 5% of the vote?
Or win an electorate seat?

So their protagonists say it's the system at fault!

Let Top in, it has to be accommodated!

Really?

Yet some of those parties the protagonists despise made the thresholds and made it to Parliament.

6 to be exact.

Are they cheating?

OK, so we lower the thresholds for next election, but it's Democracy NZ, Freedoms NZ and New Conservatives that sneak in behind the incumbents.

Aw, it's just not fair is it?

[justakiwi]

.... deleted.....




‘TOP is not Left or Right’….if that were the case, they’d simply sit outside government, vote in favour of any bills that they like, and have their MP’s put up bills to be drawn out of the hat.

But in order to implement a portion of their policy platform, they would have to go into coalition with either the major Left wing party or the major Right wing party. At that point they would demonstrably be enabling either a Left wing or a Right wing government, and with that the policy platform of the major Left or Right party. And that would be noted and judged accordingly by the public.

TOP may claim to be ‘not Left or Right’, just as a Duck may claim to be a Goose. External commentators can do their own analysis, carefully and objectively study TOP’s policies, and draw their own conclusions about whether they are truly ‘not Left or Right’. People that gormlessly just accept whatever TOP says purely at face value probably need help tying their shoe laces.

Interesting that BP was extremely confident about TOP’s chances in Ilam and of getting over the threshold, claimed that so-called ‘liberals’ would be flocking to TOP in droves, claimed that the so-called ‘far right’ were “worried” about TOP…..yet now labels other more astute posters “stupid”. Remarkable stuff.[/QUOTE]


So Top lacked enough appeal to get 5% of the vote?
Or win an electorate seat?

So their protagonists say it's the system at fault!

Let Top in, it has to be accommodated!

Really?

Yet some of those parties the protagonists despise made the thresholds and made it to Parliament.

6 to be exact.

Are they cheating?

OK, so we lower the thresholds for next election, but it's Democracy NZ, Freedoms NZ and New Conservatives that sneak in behind the incumbents.

Aw, it's just not fair is it?

[Daytr]

Rome wasn't built in a day.
Hopefully the support given to TOP will encourage them to carry on and build their profile over the next three years.

[fungus pudding]

Rome wasn't built in a day.

It's still not finished.

[Aaron]

Interesting that NZ loyal got more than half as many the votes of TOP. A party formed by a woman who lost her mind during covid in their first year.

5% threshold essential to keep out the nutbags. Hopefully NZ voters are just conservative or else I am a nutbag voting for TOP. Maybe I had better reread TOP's policies.

Got to hand it to the "Leighton Baker Party" don't know what their policies were but I had assumed votes would have been in the single or double digits

https://elections.nz/media-and-news/2023/election-night-results-for-the-2023-general-election/

[nztx]

Interesting that NZ loyal got more than half as many the votes of TOP. A party formed by a woman who lost her mind during covid in their first year.

5% threshold essential to keep out the nutbags. Hopefully NZ voters are just conservative or else I am a nutbag voting for TOP. Maybe I had better reread TOP's policies.

Got to hand it to the "Leighton Baker Party" don't know what their policies were but I had assumed votes would have been in the single or double digits

https://elections.nz/media-and-news/2023/election-night-results-for-the-2023-general-election/



10% threshold will keep out even more nutbags .. it wouldn't be bad, given the extent of resources and hindrance some of the wastes of space have squandered .. ;)

[nztx]

It's still not finished.


Don't look closely but elsewhere more local .. some still not started :)

[Panda-NZ-]

Interesting that NZ loyal got more than half as many the votes of TOP. A party formed by a woman who lost her mind during covid in their first year.

They would have beaten TOP if Winston hadn't done his thing and "pivot" towards healthcare conspiracies.

[blackcap]

5% threshold essential to keep out the nutbags.

/[/url]

I disagree. Whether we like it or not, nutbags also make up our community and they deserve representation. That is what a democracy is all about.


Otherwise we will be ruled by elites only. Is that what you want? There is a sliding scale from elite to nutbag, who is the arbiter of where to draw the line?

I say don't draw a line.

[blackcap]

They would have beaten TOP if Winston hadn't done his thing and "pivot" towards healthcare conspiracies.

You are right, they would have probably got about 3% of the vote if not more.

[Aaron]

I disagree. Whether we like it or not, nutbags also make up our community and they deserve representation. That is what a democracy is all about.


Otherwise we will be ruled by elites only. Is that what you want? There is a sliding scale from elite to nutbag, who is the arbiter of where to draw the line?

I say don't draw a line.

Looking at the votes in the link I posted earlier 2,244,380 votes cast at 5% that is 112,219 people. If you can't find policy that at least 100,000 people agree on then maybe you should not be representing the nation in parliament.

Nutbags obviously make up a sizeable chunk of the population but they have NZ First or ACT if they want representation in parliament.

I wouldn't like taxpayer money spent on finding out if we are all now shedding spike proteins or finding out which of us are lizard people, or what happened to the bodies of all the kids who died at a north shore school after being vaccinated.

That said I did not think TOPs policies were crazy but maybe I did not understand them well enough as only just under 50,000 of us thought they had some good ideas.

[jonu]

Nutbags obviously make up a sizeable chunk of the population but they have NZ First or ACT if they want representation in parliament.


The Greens should have been at the front of your list! NZ First is mostly middle of the road commonsense and Act mostly Libertarian.

The Greens? There's your nutjob party. Racist, sexist idealogues who have no clue as to the consequences of their policies. (Even their own internal leadership policies!)

[BlackPeter]

Looking at the votes in the link I posted earlier 2,244,380 votes cast at 5% that is 112,219 people. If you can't find policy that at least 100,000 people agree on then maybe you should not be representing the nation in parliament.

Nutbags obviously make up a sizeable chunk of the population but they have NZ First or ACT if they want representation in parliament.

I wouldn't like taxpayer money spent on finding out if we are all now shedding spike proteins or finding out which of us are lizard people, or what happened to the bodies of all the kids who died at a north shore school after being vaccinated.

That said I did not think TOPs policies were crazy but maybe I did not understand them well enough as only just under 50,000 of us thought they had some good ideas.

Not sure this is a fair comment. Sure - you are right, it was less than 50,000 voting for TOP. However - this does not mean that everybody else thought that they were lacking good ideas.

Some people told me, that they would have voted for TOP if there wouldn't have been the 5% threshold (the fairytale of the wasted vote turning into a self fullfilling prophecy). They clearly thought that TOP has good ideas without voting for them.

And obviously - not everybody voting for a different party thought that TOP's ideas are bad ...it is just- you can only pick one party to go with:)

Many people did not know about TOP's policies (or even where they are in the political spectrum). Obviously - in this case they couldn't assess them either - i.e. their lack of voting for TOP shows either a lack of political interest and / or insufficient marketing from the party (and yes, this is something TOP needs to work on).

Just as example - (and without wanting to point fingers) - even iceman didn't recognise that they are basically a blue-green party. Iceman is clearly politically interested, so what about the 90% of the population who are not?

From my personal point of view TOP's biggest problem is lack of visibility, and there are a number of institutional hurdles they have to overcome:

TOP has at this stage to rely just on volunteers, while their competitors in parliament have access to all the resources parliament offers: Better access to information, easy access to the media, paid staff and offices.

Even for the leadership debates was it quite funny to notice that the media always invited one of the 2% parties (Te Pati Maori) and gave them plenty of airtime, while always ignoring TOP. I am wondering how the elections would have gone, if they would have provided a level playing field?

TOP had to my knowledge something like a 50k budget for the elections. That's only $1 per vote! Compare this with the many millions of dollars parties like ACT or National had at their avail to buy voters attention :)

So, yes - plenty to do to improve TOP's visibility.

In this context I am not even too worried about some of the troll attacks we had on this thread. Remember - there is not such a thing as bad publicity. While the intent was clearly to annoy other posters and to damage the party, I think, they did help as well to make them more visible.

But - we can't just rely on trolls. Plenty of work to do to further develop TOP's policies and make them better visible.

Only if everybody knows about TOP and their policies, only then can we judge how many voters find them a good idea :);

[Aaron]

Not sure this is a fair comment. Sure - you are right, it was less than 50,000 voting for TOP. However - this does not mean that everybody else thought that they were lacking good ideas.

Some people told me, that they would have voted for TOP if there wouldn't have been the 5% threshold (the fairytale of the wasted vote turning into a self fullfilling prophecy). They clearly thought that TOP has good ideas without voting for them.

And obviously - not everybody voting for a different party thought that TOP's ideas are bad ...it is just- you can only pick one party to go with:)

Many people did not know about TOP's policies (or even where they are in the political spectrum). Obviously - in this case they couldn't assess them either - i.e. their lack of voting for TOP shows either a lack of political interest and / or insufficient marketing from the party (and yes, this is something TOP needs to work on).

Just as example - (and without wanting to point fingers) - even iceman didn't recognise that they are basically a blue-green party. Iceman is clearly politically interested, so what about the 90% of the population who are not?

From my personal point of view TOP's biggest problem is lack of visibility, and there are a number of institutional hurdles they have to overcome:

TOP has at this stage to rely just on volunteers, while their competitors in parliament have access to all the resources parliament offers: Better access to information, easy access to the media, paid staff and offices.

Even for the leadership debates was it quite funny to notice that the media always invited one of the 2% parties (Te Pati Maori) and gave them plenty of airtime, while always ignoring TOP. I am wondering how the elections would have gone, if they would have provided a level playing field?

TOP had to my knowledge something like a 50k budget for the elections. That's only $1 per vote! Compare this with the many millions of dollars parties like ACT or National had at their avail to buy voters attention :)

So, yes - plenty to do to improve TOP's visibility.

In this context I am not even too worried about some of the troll attacks we had on this thread. Remember - there is not such a thing as bad publicity. While the intent was clearly to annoy other posters and to damage the party, I think, they did help as well to make them more visible.

But - we can't just rely on trolls. Plenty of work to do to further develop TOP's policies and make them better visible.

Only if everybody knows about TOP and their policies, only then can we judge how many voters find them a good idea :);

It's a tough road getting a party across the line. What they need is an All Black or Celebrity in the right electorate to get visibility with a couple of MPs in parliament.

Jonu, probably right re the Greens, but I heard a snippet that the greens biggest supporter bases are in the towns (they constantly sh*t on farmers without addressing townies excessive consumption and lifestyle) but interestingly they are apparently from the wealthier suburbs, so probably people who are doing OK and can afford to be ideological and don't think they will be the ones to starve to death when we "just stop oil". Not long haired dirty dope smoking hippies happy with a semi communist govt. provided they don't have to work, as I would have presumed.

Climate change appears to be real as to whether it is existential or not, time will tell. I am more suspicious of experts peddling fear after the covid fiasco but am going along with it without drastically altering my lifestyle. Fortunately I hate unnecessarily spending money or shopping so my carbon footprint should be below the NZ average but still up there on a global scale.

[Getty]

Many people did not know about TOP's policies (or even where they are in the political spectrum). Obviously - in this case they couldn't assess them either - i.e. their lack of voting for TOP shows either a lack of political interest and / or insufficient marketing from the party (and yes, this is something TOP needs to work on).

From my personal point of view TOP's biggest problem is lack of visibility, and there are a number of institutional hurdles they have to overcome:

TOP had to my knowledge something like a 50k budget for the elections. That's only $1 per vote! Compare this with the many millions of dollars parties like ACT or National had at their avail to buy voters attention :)

);

So if that's a true statement and reflection on how things work, all it takes is an ardent supporter such as yourself to donate @ $70K to get Top from 2.07% of provisional votes, to over 5% next time.

Raf could have bought himself a job...

Politics is so easy...

[davflaws]

So if that's a true statement and reflection on how things work, all it takes is an ardent supporter such as yourself to donate @ $70K to get Top from 2.07% of provisional votes, to over 5% next time.



I think Gareth already tried that.

[BlackPeter]

So if that's a true statement and reflection on how things work, all it takes is an ardent supporter such as yourself to donate @ $70K to get Top from 2.07% of provisional votes, to over 5% next time.

Raf could have bought himself a job...

Politics is so easy...

What a stupid post.

I only made some valid observations about election spending.

You made up your own story using a dummie extrapolation and try to beat others with your non-sense.

That's what kindergarten bullies do.

Ah yes, aren't you one of these far right trolls?

[Getty]

What a stupid post.

I only made some valid observations about election spending.

You made up your own story using a dummie extrapolation and try to beat others with your non-sense.

That's what kindergarten bullies do.

Ah yes, aren't you one of these far right trolls?

If only we could get you away from your negative reputation button for long enough, you would see how pathetic you really are!

Like a besotted child who has a new spinning Top toy.

You are the epitome of bully.

Then, when embarrassed, you launch straight into smear.

If Top is as right leaning as you think it is, then maybe it makes anyone centrist seem far right.

Far out.

[BlackPeter]

If only we could get you away from your negative reputation button for long enough, you would see how pathetic you really are!

Like a besotted child who has a new spinning Top toy.

You are the epitome of bully.

Then, when embarrassed, you launch straight into smear.

If Top is as right leaning as you think it is, then maybe it makes anyone centrist seem far right.

Far out.

Interesting - its always the kindergarten bullies who think that the right of free speech applies only to them.

They first tease others until they react and than they complain to the kindergarten teacher. You behave like such a bully.

I found your made up story disgusting and exercised my right of free speech to mark that with the appropriate reputation. Absolutely apropriate way to use it.

Why do you complain? Do you support free speech only for the people who agree with your drivel?

[Getty]

Interesting - its always the kindergarten bullies who think that the right of free speech applies only to them.

They first tease others until they react and than they complain to the kindergarten teacher. You behave like such a bully.

I found your made up story disgusting and exercised my right of free speech to mark that with the appropriate reputation. Absolutely apropriate way to use it.

Why do you complain? Do you support free speech only for the people who agree with your drivel?
Your liking for making up and believing fairy tales is illustrated by your reference to kindergartens.

Please point out what I made up?

Don't confuse a comment with a complaint.

And don't try and turn the tables on the subject of free speech.
I have previously pointed out your hatred of free speech, and your resort to the bad rep button to bully others who have a different opinion to yours.

Any neutral observer will see your very sad record in that regard!

[FTG]

To the objective observer, it is clear that since inception, TOP has been, and still is, ideologically "confused".

No wonder some on this thread also appear confused and struggle to articulately communicate what, if any, TOP's foundational principles are.

Ideological confusion in a political party is often a strong signal, that really, they are just attempting to be a populist movement, rather than a party based on a suite of rock-solid principles.

This internal confusion then permeates all the way through to the electorate candidates, party faithful, casual & fleeting supporters (swing voters) and of course, the general voting public. In reality, Policy/Principle wise, the party will likely be "all over the map".

From a PR perspective, TOP attempts to position themselves as a centrist party - boldly declaring, "We are neither on the Left or the Right". Again, this is straight from the 'Populist Political Party Playbook'. I venture to say that a few TOP supporters have swallowed that hook, line and sinker. Fortunately, 97.9% of voters saw the spoiled bait for what it is.

Another tactic commonly deployed by political party's attempting to 'land-grab' from the centre of the political spectrum is, to hijack the use of descriptive labels that have a very wide appeal. The labels "Progressive" & "Liberal" are a good case in point. E.g. What voter would put their hand up & say that they don't want "progress"?

The word liberal derives from the Latin word liber, which meant FREE. So politically, and for many decades, a true Liberal (politically) was one who supported & promoted individual rights, civil liberties, free enterprise, etc. Today, however, the 'label hijackers' attempt to use the word liberal to promote their version of policies that are 'socially progressive", E.g. BIG Social Welfare programs.

So, despite attempting to claim a neutral/centrist position, TOP's policy platform very clearly places them LEFT of centre on the political spectrum. For those who can recall, akin to the Social Credit Party, in the 1980's.

Funny, I seem to recall Gareth Morgan once saying that there were a lot of things about the original SCP that he liked!

[Getty]

To the objective observer, it is clear that since inception, TOP has been, and still is, ideologically "confused".

No wonder some on this thread also appear confused and struggle to articulately communicate what, if any, TOP's foundational principles are.

Ideological confusion in a political party is often a strong signal, that really, they are just attempting to be a populist movement, rather than a party based on a suite of rock-solid principles.

This internal confusion then permeates all the way through to the electorate candidates, party faithful, casual & fleeting supporters (swing voters) and of course, the general voting public. In reality, Policy/Principle wise, the party will likely be "all over the map".

From a PR perspective, TOP attempts to position themselves as a centrist party - boldly declaring, "We are neither on the Left or the Right". Again, this is straight from the 'Populist Political Party Playbook'. I venture to say that the few TOP supporters have swallowed that hook, sinker and line. Fortunately, 97% of voters saw the spoiled bait for what it is.

Another tactic commonly deployed by political party's attempting to 'land-grab' from the centre of the political spectrum is, to hijack the use of descriptive labels that have a very wide appeal. The labels "Progressive" & "Liberal" are a good case in point. E.g. What voters would put their hand up & say that they don't want "progress"?

The word liberal derives from the Latin word liber, which meant FREE. So politically, and for many decades, a true Liberal (politically) was one who supported & promoted individual rights, civil liberties, free enterprise, etc. Today, however, the 'descriptive label hijackers' attempt to use the word liberal to promote their version of policies that are 'socially progressive", E.g. BIG Social Welfare programs.

So, despite attempting to claim a neutral/centrist position, TOP's policy platform very clearly places them LEFT of centre on the political spectrum. For those who can recall, akin to the Social Credit Party, in the 1980's.

Funny, I seem to recall Gareth Morgan once saying that there were a lot of things about the original SCP that he liked!

Excellent summation and perspective.

[BlackPeter]

To the objective observer, it is clear that since inception, TOP has been, and still is, ideologically "confused".

No wonder some on this thread also appear confused and struggle to articulately communicate what, if any, TOP's foundational principles are.

Ideological confusion in a political party is often a strong signal, that really, they are just attempting to be a populist movement, rather than a party based on a suite of rock-solid principles.

This internal confusion then permeates all the way through to the electorate candidates, party faithful, casual & fleeting supporters (swing voters) and of course, the general voting public. In reality, Policy/Principle wise, the party will likely be "all over the map".

From a PR perspective, TOP attempts to position themselves as a centrist party - boldly declaring, "We are neither on the Left or the Right". Again, this is straight from the 'Populist Political Party Playbook'. I venture to say that the few TOP supporters have swallowed that hook, sinker and line. Fortunately, 97% of voters saw the spoiled bait for what it is.

Another tactic commonly deployed by political party's attempting to 'land-grab' from the centre of the political spectrum is, to hijack the use of descriptive labels that have a very wide appeal. The labels "Progressive" & "Liberal" are a good case in point. E.g. What voters would put their hand up & say that they don't want "progress"?

The word liberal derives from the Latin word liber, which meant FREE. So politically, and for many decades, a true Liberal (politically) was one who supported & promoted individual rights, civil liberties, free enterprise, etc. Today, however, the 'descriptive label hijackers' attempt to use the word liberal to promote their version of policies that are 'socially progressive", E.g. BIG Social Welfare programs.

So, despite attempting to claim a neutral/centrist position, TOP's policy platform very clearly places them LEFT of centre on the political spectrum. For those who can recall, akin to the Social Credit Party, in the 1980's.

Funny, I seem to recall Gareth Morgan once saying that there were a lot of things about the original SCP that he liked!

I guess you could say that about any political party. Don't forget - parties are just a collection of people who change over time. Remember Maldoon (National) running his Think Big projects (i.e. big state idea - left wing)? Remember afterwards the Labour party under Lange dismanteling the biggest nanny state NZ ever had (applying many right-wing policies)?
Remember the times when the Green Party was mainly concerned about the environment before the Alliance (including the former Communist party of NZ) took them over?

They all must have been very ïdeological confused? - So, maybe we allow that other parties as well.

But I guess your critical mistake is to try to project everything in a multidimensional universe onto a one dimensional left - right spectrum. It is neither helpful nor sensical. Actually - what you are doing is practising the fundamental flaw of populism: You apply a simple solution onto a complex problem which does not work.

Instead of having an absolutely pointless left-right discussion (which only came from the place where delegates used to sit in the French National Assembly after the revolution) it might be more useful to talk about concrete issues. Lets talk issues instead of where to put the deckchairs - shall we?

So - what is wrong with a party which suggests to apply a bit more common sense instead of ideology when solving problems, which has practical proposals to conserve and improve the environment, which suggests to improve our education and health systems, which has a practical solution to reduce landspeculation and to encourage better use of our land and still has policies to make sure that our economy can prosper?

Not sure why some of the right wingers try so hard to put TOP into the left wing corner? - Is it TOP's proposal to invest into our youth?

Now, I do acknowledge that some of the policies might need some more flesh to make clear that the country expects a return on its investment into the youth (and rules how to ensure that) - but hey, this is early days ... and if even National gets away with an unfunded Tax relief proposal, than maybe we should give a new party without an army of taxpayer funded lawyers reviewing each of their proposals a bit more leeway and allow them to draw up a direction which no doubt will be better defined in the years ahead? Whatever its flaws - at the moment we are neglecting our youth ... and if we keep doing that we will lose them. What do you think will happen with a country without young people?

I haven't seen yet any argument why rocking the boat consistently from the right to the left to the right (and so on ...) should be a better way to move the country forward than just using our resources and energy to drive it straight ahead into a better future.

Boat rockers are just people who want to keep us in the past!

[Getty]

I guess you could say that about any political party. Don't forget - parties are just a collection of people who change over time. Remember Maldoon (National) running his Think Big projects (i.e. big state idea - left wing)? Remember afterwards the Labour party under Lange dismanteling the biggest nanny state NZ ever had (applying many right-wing policies)?
Remember the times when the Green Party was mainly concerned about the environment before the Alliance (including the former Communist party of NZ) took them over?

They all must have been very ïdeological confused? - So, maybe we allow that other parties as well.

But I guess your critical mistake is to try to project everything in a multidimensional universe onto a one dimensional left - right spectrum. It is neither helpful nor sensical. Actually - what you are doing is practising the fundamental flaw of populism: You apply a simple solution onto a complex problem which does not work.

Instead of having an absolutely pointless left-right discussion (which only came from the place where delegates used to sit in the French National Assembly after the revolution) it might be more useful to talk about concrete issues. Lets talk issues instead of where to put the deckchairs - shall we?

So - what is wrong with a party which suggests to apply a bit more common sense instead of ideology when solving problems, which has practical proposals to conserve and improve the environment, which suggests to improve our education and health systems, which has a practical solution to reduce landspeculation and to encourage better use of our land and still has policies to make sure that our economy can prosper?

Not sure why some of the right wingers try so hard to put TOP into the left wing corner? - Is it TOP's proposal to invest into our youth?

Now, I do acknowledge that some of the policies might need some more flesh to make clear that the country expects a return on its investment into the youth (and rules how to ensure that) - but hey, this is early days ... and if even National gets away with an unfunded Tax relief proposal, than maybe we should give a new party without an army of taxpayer funded lawyers reviewing each of their proposals a bit more leeway and allow them to draw up a direction which no doubt will be better defined in the years ahead? Whatever its flaws - at the moment we are neglecting our youth ... and if we keep doing that we will lose them. What do you think will happen with a country without young people?

I haven't seen yet any argument why rocking the boat consistently from the right to the left to the right (and so on ...) should be a better way to move the country forward than just using our resources and energy to drive it straight ahead into a better future.

Boat rockers are just people who want to keep us in the past!

So there you have it folks.

Much preamble conditioning you that Top will be just as good or bad as any of the other 8 parties or alliance that have made it to Parliament under MMP.

Ah, but now Top is the only common sense one.

Where have we heard that before?
From someone Dunne and dusted.

Bring back the worm!

Top needs it, before it gets the bird.

Or why just settle for a Vermeer, when you can have a Van Gogh?

A splinter or a whole cabinet?

Someone may save themselves $70K.

Meanwhile, anyone who votes for any other party, is going to enjoy being told they and their party of choice has no common sense!

After all, there is only 98% of them, compared to Top's 2%!

Anyone feel they are having their tail wagged?

[Panda-NZ-]

TOP gains 15k from special votes... from 2.07% to 2.22%.

[Logen Ninefingers]

If TOP had got to 2.5% then they would have been exactly half way towards getting to the threshold.

[Getty]

Cream is supposed to rise the the top, but not if it's half baked.

[Balance]

Raf Manji quits and TOP will hold a meeting to decide on its future.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/503848/opportunities-party-leader-raf-manji-resigns

[Getty]

Was there a rift with Raf?

He didn't last at the Top very long.

[iceman]

Was there a rift with Raf?

He didn't last at the Top very long.

Maybe just the reality setting in that he is wasting his time

[Logen Ninefingers]

I predicted that Raf Manji would abandon TOP shortly after the election & seek a new meal ticket, if he lost in Ilam & TOP failed to get over the threshold. This line of thinking was rubbished by a couple of the TOP fanatics posting in this thread. In the event, Raf has of course done exactly what I predicted.
The Left live in a fantasy world of idealism and gullibility.

[whatsup]

Raf Manji quits and TOP will hold a meeting to decide on its future.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/503848/opportunities-party-leader-raf-manji-resigns

Dont know what sort of a great decession maker he was, at one time he was one of the top 5 share holders in SNAKK !!

[blackcap]

Dont know what sort of a great decession maker he was, at one time he was one of the top 5 share holders in SNAKK !!

That really makes him a guru. Snakk, now there that brings back some memories of all sorts of shenanigans. I remember putting though orders for this company for some that were directly involved.... say no more.

[Baa_Baa]

I predicted that Raf Manji would abandon TOP shortly after the election & seek a new meal ticket, if he lost in Ilam & TOP failed to get over the threshold. This line of thinking was rubbished by a couple of the TOP fanatics posting in this thread. In the event, Raf has of course done exactly what I predicted.

You certainly did, a prescient call, exactly.

[Daytr]

I predicted that Raf Manji would abandon TOP shortly after the election & seek a new meal ticket, if he lost in Ilam & TOP failed to get over the threshold. This line of thinking was rubbished by a couple of the TOP fanatics posting in this thread. In the event, Raf has of course done exactly what I predicted.
The Left live in a fantasy world of idealism and gullibility.

You also promised that you would stop posting after the election.
At least one of those things is true.
Shame the one that's not true is within your control of keeping a promise.

[Daytr]

https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/12/03/raf-manji-resigns-as-leader-of-the-opportunities-party/

"Manji is the third TOP leader to resign in three elections."

I look forward to the fourth.

How many leaders have National had in that time? Is it 5 or 6? I've lost count.

[nztx]

How many leaders have National had in that time? Is it 5 or 6? I've lost count.


not as many as the other deluded lot have managed to toss out overboard in the past year ;)

[iceman]

63,330 people voted for TOP with their party vote. I'd like to take the time here to congratulate every single one of them. Well done!

I do note that those of us that said the supporters on here of TOP were in la la land, got hammered in replies. The TOP supporters have now disappeared from the forum.