If National wins ...

[fungus pudding]

That was no doubt the conclusion John Key came to with Bill English, promised to support him then voted for Don Brash.

Why not have a go at changing the subject!

[elZorro]

Possibly. Morgan is a socialist through and through, a modem day Robin Hood, so if he manages to get a following at all - which I doubt - it will come from Labour/Greens.

Yeah, sure. National will just sail through with about 50% of the party vote in 2017. In your dreams, FP.

http://www.top.org.nz/about_top

[GTM 3442]

I'm not so sure about that craic.

I think that there is a massive groundswell of dissatisfaction with the current social, economic, and cultural state of affairs in New Zealand. Add to that the traditional "three-in-a-row, time-to-go" nine year cycle of New Zealand politics, and I think you have the makings of a very disruptive election in 2017.

I think that Labour and the Greens have been unable to tap that groundswell and potential for disruption to build sufficient support to challenge National in any meaningful way. Which has, of course, led to them being seen as incompetent and ineffectual.

So a "sensible, evidence-based policy" grouping has massive potential to suck votes from both sides of the (outdated) political spectrum.

[GTM 3442]

Mornin' fungus. . .

I think you're looking in the wrong direction. I think it's far more likely that he would suck more votes from National than from "the left". I think there are quite a few voters who would jump at the chance to stop swallowing the dead rats that seem part and parcel of voting National because they see no alternative.

It will be interesting to see how this all looks in a year or so's time.

[fungus pudding]

Yeah, sure. National will just sail through with about 50% of the party vote in 2017. In your dreams, FP.

http://www.top.org.nz/about_top

I'm glad you think so. I don't. They'll need Act and Allah forbid, they might even need Winston.

[GTM 3442]

You might be right if there was a charismatic promoter involved. Garreth Morgan just ain't charismatic.

ACT seemed to do OK for quite aa while with no visible signs of charisma. Principles and policy should not be under-rated as a path to electoral success.

And I will note, just in passing, that ACT's decline seemed quite well correlated to the amount of "charisma" on display.

[fungus pudding]

ACT seemed to do OK for quite aa while with no visible signs of charisma. Principles and policy should not be under-rated as a path to electoral success.

And I will note, just in passing, that ACT's decline seemed quite well correlated to the amount of "charisma" on display.

That is my point. Act's original policies were brilliant and they had well known figures at the helm, from Labour and National backgrounds but as the original crew faded away out went the policies and the party has never recovered. Principal and policy is a hard sell without the right skipper. Morgan ain't the man to do it.

[GTM 3442]

That is my point. Act's original policies were brilliant and they had well known figures at the helm, from Labour and National backgrounds but as the original crew faded away out went the policies and the party has never recovered. Principal and policy is a hard sell without the right skipper. Morgan ain't the man to do it.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

ACT certainly had policy and principle to start with, but they were served up by a relatively non-charismatic crew. I mean Stephen Franks, charismatic? Roger Douglas?

The policies and principles attracted the voters, not the personalities.

Once ACT acquired charismatic leaders, (Messrs Hide and Brash) the party dwindled into irrelevance.

My point is that ACT was successful (possibly the most successful minor party that New Zealand has ever seen) without the need for "charismatic" leadership.

I suspect that ToP may be able to do the same thing - succeed on policy and principle, without the need for a "charismatic" leader.

We'll see in four years. . .

[fungus pudding]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

ACT certainly had policy and principle to start with, but they were served up by a relatively non-charismatic crew. I mean Stephen Franks, charismatic? Roger Douglas?

The policies and principles attracted the voters, not the personalities.

Once ACT acquired charismatic leaders, (Messrs Hide and Brash) the party dwindled into irrelevance.

My point is that ACT was successful (possibly the most successful minor party that New Zealand has ever seen) without the need for "charismatic" leadership.

I suspect that ToP may be able to do the same thing - succeed on policy and principle, without the need for a "charismatic" leader.

We'll see in four years. . .

Maybe not charismatic but Roger Douglas and Derek Quigley were highly respected and experienced. Morgan's policies, if his writings to date are anything to go by, will be viewed as odd - as is poor old Gareth.

[GTM 3442]

Maybe not charismatic but Roger Douglas and Derek Quigley were highly respected and experienced. Morgan's policies, if his writings to date are anything to go by, will be viewed as odd - as is poor old Gareth.

I think that Mister Morgans ideas, properly presented, might have quite a wide appeal. We'll see in the 2020 election. . .