No more Opportunities Party

Gareth Morgan put a lot of time, effort and money into the Opportunities Party. They developed some usuful policies, Morgan did well in public meetings, but he and PR recruit Sean Plunket made arses of themselves in social median at times.

Regardless, as all start up parties and millionaires have found, the 5% threshold is just too hard to achieve, especially with flawed leaders.

Today Morgan announced that the there would be no more Opportunities Party.


The Opportunities Party Will Not Contest 2020

The Board of The Opportunities Party (TOP) has decided to request that the Electoral Commission cancel TOP’s registration as a political party.

TOP was formed in late 2016 to contest the 2017 election in which it polled at 2.4%. Since the election the Board has considered whether it would invest time and money in preparing the Party to contest 2020 and after due consideration has decided against it.

Party founder Dr Gareth Morgan said, “I’m proud of the policy manifesto we developed and have no doubt it was by far the strongest on offer to improve New Zealanders’ incomes, business productivity, social fairness and environmental sustainability. The legacy of that manifesto remains and to be frank was all that personally ever interested me.”

“The voting public demonstrated that best practice, evidence-informed policy is not of significant concern when deciding elections. When 20% of the vote moves in 48 hours simply on the back of a change of leader, with no improvement at all in policy being offered, what makes the New Zealand voter tick is clear.”

“TOP was formed to improve the policy options on offer. Too few voters supported our policies. That’s reality and we accept that. With no inclination to compromise policy for political ambition, or to de-emphasise best practice policy for the promotion of whatever else attracts people’s votes, it’s pretty obvious what the appropriate course of action for this party should be.”

“I’d like to thank all those involved with TOP. We had fun and we challenged people and for the more than 60,000 people really interested in best practice policy, we appealed. They have reason to be proud.”

Leave a comment

23 Comments

  1. ‘How to make sure that you insult the majority of voters and make sure that they will be turned off any future party that you might found.’ by Gareth Morgan

    Reply
    • Corky

       /  July 9, 2018

      Yeah, but he’s right. Many voters are thick. That’s why they vote, hoping for change.

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  July 9, 2018

        Non-voters are the thick ones, too lazy to go and vote, still expecting to get what they want and moaning at the result of the election when they did nothing to change this.

        Reply
        • Corky

           /  July 9, 2018

          You really are a fool. Voting is a waste of time. Pity you wont learn that in your life time.
          I don’t moan at the results . I just believe one poison chalice is less toxic than the other.

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  July 10, 2018

            Temper, temper.

            There’s no need to throw a tizzwozz.

            I hope that you blindly accept whatever the government decides to do, as you have done nothing to change this. Thank goodness most people prefer to get off their arses and vote, or we’d have either anarchy or a dictatorship.

            Reply
            • Corky

               /  July 10, 2018

              I don’t know where this temper temper thing is coming from?

              I guess bluster is all you you have left.

              I see nothing in the above post to suggest temper or throwing a tizz.

              However, I did explain why you and everyone who votes are fools.

              I guess the truth hurts.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  July 10, 2018

              Don’t be absurd.

            • If you weren’t stamping your tiny feet and having a tantrum, you were doing a good imitation of one.

              You are fortunate that most people don’t smugly congratulate themselves on being too ignorant and idle to vote and that we don’t live in a dictatorship or a state of anarchy.

              You did not explain anything, A statement about what you think is not an explanation, it’s an opinion, and an ill thought out one.

            • Corky

               /  July 10, 2018

              Still trying every vain excuse for your foolishness? Face facts. Ignorant voters like you are fodder for politicians whom care little for you. But don’t take my word for it…vote at the next election..and get nothing.

              ps..this post isn’t a temper tantrum.

            • Oh dear, how you do run on, making excuses for your laziness and ignorance. Has it occurred to you that you, as a member of the minority too lazy to go and vote, might be the fool ?

              I take it that you have never known any politicians from your ignorant remarks (and that you don’t know the difference between who and whom)*

              I have no intention of taking your word for anything.

              * ‘Who’ is active. ‘Who’s there ?’
              ‘Whom’ is passive. ‘ I saw a man whom I know.’

              Now run away and bore someone else.

            • Corky

               /  July 10, 2018

              ‘Who’ is active. ‘Who’s there ?’
              ‘Whom’ is passive. ‘ I saw a man whom I know.

              Still showing your ego after a Google search? To be truthful I wasn’t sure myself. But I was sure you couldn’t help yourself. Good work. You have more browney points.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  July 11, 2018

              Brownie points, with a capital B.

              How could anyone think that ‘whom’ and ‘who’ are the same ? Would you say ‘ There him is .’ ?

              I can assure you that as I have known the difference since I was a child, there was no need to google something so obvious., any more than I’d need to google ‘him and he’ to find out the difference. It’s amazing that an adult would ‘not be sure’ of the difference between ‘who and whom’ !

              Would you ask ‘Whom’s there ?’

              Buy a dictionary and a grammar textbook.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  July 11, 2018

              I can’t remember not knowing which of these words to use. You can’t have noticed, but if you didn’t know the difference, you wouldn’t.

            • Gezza

               /  July 10, 2018

              *brownie points
              (no need to thank me, I’m just passing through)

  2. Zedd

     /  July 9, 2018

    Its a shame.. not only were they sitting in the ‘Blue-Green’ space that seems empty, but also another party, pro-cannabis reform too ! 😦

    For MMP to truly work we need more parties/better options; beyond Lab V Natl with NZF &/or Grns making up the coalition deals. When I say parties I mean, over 5% threshold not just electorate ‘1-off cozy deals’ (with Natl)

    Reply
    • Zedd

       /  July 9, 2018

      also with the ‘reeferendum’ coming up.. maybe TOP would have got more support at the election, if they made it a priority. There is talk that Lab. want it run next year, (done) so it does NOT become the major issue in 2020 ? :/ :/

      Reply
      • The ‘cosy deal’ was a straightforward and honest one that would not have worked if the voters hadn’t wanted it to. MMP meant that the voters could have someone from each party if they wanted, and they did.

        Reply
  3. Fight4NZ

     /  July 9, 2018

    I think they have been far too hasty throwing in the towel.
    That 20% swing is an ugly indictment on the electorate, but is also due to the leadership change finally offering a palatable alternative to the growing fetid stench of the sitting government.
    Next election will be very different and likely ideal circumstances for top to be part of government. The stench of National will not be completely forgotten. The ill considered largesse of Labour/Greens already scoring own goals. Winston history.
    Perfect for TOP to grab a substantial portion of the vote. Think twice Gareth.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  July 9, 2018

      Interesting. I was thinking along similar lines myself earlier this evening. This government is going to disappoint & seems to be full of compromised Labour Ministers already exposed as flip flopping all over the show & not having any real alternatives to the status quo beyond window dressing, nor any credible detailed plans sitting behind what controversial vote-buying & ideologically-based policies the Greens or NZF have managed to wring out of Labour.

      There seemed to me to be a possibility of disgruntled voters having more of a look at a party that seemed to have more worked-through, detailed policy & some sort of planning behind them.

      A problem TOP ended up having was Gareth’s on-display, irritable, arrogant-sounding personality & abrasive style, though. I don’t think there’s much chance he will change his mind, & TOP will always be perceived as Gareth’s party – but I too think he & they chucked the towel in too early. Makes it all now seem like a vanity project for him & a petulant response to voters not immediately won over by his brilliance.

      Politics is a long haul business. He’s obviously not in it for the long haul.

      Reply
  4. Reply
  5. Gerrit

     /  July 10, 2018

    TOP problem for me was their inability to explain the asset tax reasoning and how it would be tax neutral.

    Every asset had to have a return on its value at least 6% per year and that income would be taxable. If your asset did not return that 6% you would still need to pay the tax irrespective.

    These assets included the family home, and personal property such as cars, paintings, bank deposits, etc.

    Gareth never took time to explain how this tax would work, but more importantly never explained how it would be tax neutral by dropping which other taxes.

    The example where granny living in her mortgage free home on a state pension would need to find a asset return value every year greater than she ever paid in taxes (Say a 1M home, TOP requires 60K ROI on which she needed to pay 12K in taxes – when her 28K pension is taxed at 2K) The thought of an IRD reverse mortgage for granny to pay the taxes just did not wash.

    The idea has merit in that it forces people to utilise their assets to make the trade-able productive sector better financed. Making their money work for the economy (with its attending risks).

    The unexplained asset tax (and how large the state department needed to be to list every asset in New Zealand and set its taxable value yearly) made him unelectable and the future of the TOP party untenable.

    Reply
  6. High Flying Duck

     /  July 10, 2018

    Reply
    • David

       /  July 10, 2018

      He missed ‘while blaming everyone else for his failure’…

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s