TOP for 2020, Morgan stepping down as leader

The Opportunities Party has announced a commitment to contest the 2020 election, and have said that Gareth Morgan will step down as leader – this is a wise move, Morgan did very well at public meetings but his media performance was very mixed and won’t have helped his party’s chances in this year’s election.

Announcement:

  • Our day-to-day activity will be centered around our policy development and comms unit at HQ. We will continue to engage with the public and champion the importance of best practice policy.
  • As well, of course, we’ll be providing a TOP perspective on policy developments from the new government – Benchmarking them against TOP best practice policy.
  • We will be looking to grow ‘areas of influence’; regional groups of members and candidates working mostly autonomously to help build our follower base.

On leadership:

  • While Gareth intends to remain as Party Chairperson he will not be the political leader for the party in 2020. It has always been with great reluctance that he has put his name forward in that capacity and so has decided to remove the ambiguity and let others compete for the political leadership role. He will remain as political leader until we determine a new political leadership, most probably well before the end of 2018.

TOP’s commitment for 2020

At TOP HQ our post-election “breather” is now over and it’s time to gear up for the next election. You may have heard the announcement this morning, shedding some light on TOP’s future. We are going through some pretty significant changes, however rest assured that these are all in the interests of giving us the best chance to be successful going forward.

One of the big shifts is our intention to pass some of the responsibility on to you. We’re looking forward to developing a couple more policy areas in 2018/19 in conjunction with submissions and discussion with our party members. We had some great success with this process during the election when we developed our cannabis and alcohol policies through member submission, and we plan to continue this relationship. We also want to turn TOP into a movement, starting from the grassroots, after all, having a strong membership is the cornerstone of any organisation. So, if you feel passionate about what we are trying to achieve, feel like you can help, or want to get involved in our next batch of policy, make sure you sign up here.

TOP got 2.4% of the vote this year, 63,261. They need to get 5% to get into Parliament, unless they can get a current electorate MP to defect to them – no party has yet made it into Parliament under MMP without having a current or past MP.

Evidence against TOP

The Opportunities Party have promoted their policies as evidence based. From About on their website: TOP takes a long term, evidence based view.

However now we are down to the business end of the campaign evidence seems to have flown out the TOP window.

A few days ago on Newshub: Gareth Morgan blames landlines for poor polling, claims he’ll win 5-10 percent

“When I ask the question in the town hall shows I do every night, ‘ Hands up those who’ve got a landline, it’s 10 or 15 percent,” the Opportunities Party (TOP) leader told The AM Show on Thursday.

“What’s wrong with these polling companies? I think we’ll be somewhere between 5 and 10 percent. I’ve said it from day one.”

Where’s the evidence? TOP has a big budget, if they wanted evidence they would have done their own polling. I think it’s quite likely they have done their own polling, if so it is not evidence they want publicised.

Cut Your Hair: The evidence says TOP have no hope

TOP pride themselves on being an evidence-based party. So it behooves us to examine the evidence behind Gareth Morgan’s suggestion that TOP have a real chance of winning representation in Saturday’s election.

Question: Has any party ever achieved what TOP is trying to achieve?

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Only one party has ever won representation under MMP in New Zealand without a sitting electorate MP from a sitting party. That sole exception is ACT, who had several prominent former Labour and National cabinet ministers. That happened in the first MMP election, when everyone and their mum voted minor party.

Not many parties have won representation under MMP in New Zealand, whether through the 5% threshold or local seats. Only one MP has ever won representation for a party that didn’t have an MP elected in 1996 for one party or another: Hone Harawira, for Mana.

Most of the small parties that have won representation have done so via a local seat (Māori, Mana, Progressive, United, ACT, and NZ First have all coat-tailed in). Only 7 parties have ever reached 5%: National, Labour, the Greens, NZ First, ACT, the Alliance, and United Future. The last three have all failed more times than they’ve succeeded and have basically shriveled away to nothing (or, worse, to David Seymour). Scores of parties have failed to reach 5% OR a local seat: the Conservatives, Christian Heritage/Coalition, Legalise Cannabis, Destiny, Outdoor Recreation, Future, etc.

The latest public polls (that use a variety of polling methods):

  • Listener Bauer Media Insights 1-5 Sept: 2.2%
  • 1 News Colmar Brunton 2-6 Sept: 1.9%
  • Newsroom-SSI 4-6 Sept: 2%
  • Roy Morgan 28 Aug-10 Sept: 2%
  • Newshub Reid Research 6-11 Sept: 1.6%
  • 1 News Colmar Brunton 9-13 Sept: 1.6%
  • Horizon Research 9-14 Sept: 2.3%

Evidently TOP look like getting nowhere near the 5% threshold.

So they have done their own polling. It shows them very likely to come up short.

Morgan will know that if they don’t look like getting close to 5% many voters will prefer to vote elsewhere rather than risk ‘wasting their vote’.  Hence the bullshit about the polls being wrong.

Question: Might the polling be wrong?

Short answer: Anything is possible, but TOP reaching 5% would require polling error on an unprecedented scale.

Morgan and Sean Plunket ranting and abusing on Twitter won’t change things.

It’s not just history and the polls that are against TOP. Others have tried Donald Trump’s tactic of being bellicose and abusive and complaining about the polls – in particular Winston Peters, and NZ First has slumped over the last two months in the polls.

Question: Is this a good year for a minor party to achieve the never-before-achieved?

Short Answer: No—on current polling this will be the worst MMP election ever for minor parties.

It looks like it will take a major game changer for TOP to get close to or beat the threshold, and they are running out of time.

Question: Could TOP win a local seat?

Short answer: There is no evidence to suggest they will come close to winning any local seat. Morgan might have had a chance, but he isn’t standing in a local seat.

That Morgan is targeting the polls and the threshold (without any evidence) supports this. TOP dabbled with targeting the Ohariu electorate a couple of weeks ago but that effort seems to have fizzled.

In some ways TOP have been impressive. Their evidence based approach to developing solid policies has been very good. Morgan has impressed sizeable crowds at campaign meetings.

But TOP has been shut out of small party debates. And they have failed to attract enough positive media attention. Morgan and Plunket have also been too cranky on Twitter and possibly elsewhere in social media.

Yesterday Plunket tweeted a challenge:

A bizarre approach.

It must be frustrating to have put so much time and money into their campaign, but making up shit about polls looks desperate and not based on any evidence.

Moaning about polls is almost certainly not going to change the game and suddenly boost support for TOP. Morgan might be better trying a different last gasp approach.

It’s sad to see another new party beaten by the ridiculously high threshold. Parliament could benefit from a different approach and some fresh ideas and MPs. But facts are facts, and TOP look like failing.

TOP lose legal bid to debate

The Opportunities Party went to court to try to get included in tonight’s minor party leaders debate and lost. This isn’t surprising, it’s hard for a court to force a media organisation, but it’s very disappointing to see our state owned television broadcaster using ‘rules’ to be undemocratic.

The MMP system – in particular to ridiculously high 5% threshold – is stacked against new parties making it into Parliament.

TVNZ’s ‘rule of not allowing parties who haven’t got at least 3% in their last two polls to take part in the biggest debate of the campaign for minor parties is a disgrace to democratic principles.

RNZ: TOP loses legal bid to appear in multi-party debate

The Opportunities Party (TOP) has lost its legal fight to appear on TVNZ’s multi-party debate tomorrow evening.

TVNZ lawyer Stacey Shortall said it had robust criteria for parties to be involved, including either already being in parliament or polling at at least three percent in one of the two Colmar Brunton polls before the debate.

It is not ‘robust criteria’. State owned broadcasters in particular should have a responsibility to be fair to serious contenders, but TVNZ is denying TOP a prime  chance of being seen and heard.

TOP polled at 1 percent in its poll at the end of August and at 1.9 percent today.

TOP’s lawyer Francis Cooke QC argued the party’s inclusion in the debates was critical to the election process and TVNZ’s criteria should be more robust.

But the political-media system remains stacked against them.

Key points from Edwards’ affidavit:

24 Fourth, in my view the use of such criteria is self-perpetuating and antidemocratic. A party that is excluded from the debates has little chance of making headway in the polls. What is more, I think that excluding them from the debates sends the message to viewers that their views and policies are not worthy of consideration. I think this is dangerously undemocratic.

25 Fifth, this year’s election campaign is proving extremely volatile. Political scientists and commentators appear to be in consensus that we are witnessing the greatest polling volatility yet recorded in an election campaign in New Zealand. Therefore, it seems unreasonable to take two Colmar Brunton polls as a snapshot of likely outcomes in the election – the flux is just too great at the moment in politics to regard such polling to be definitive.

27 Finally, the minor parties seem set to play a pivotal role in this year’s election as they are likely to hold the balance of power after the election. In my view, this makes it particularly important that the public is given sufficient exposure to their leaders and policies.

30 In my view TVNZ’s exclusion of TOP would do a disservice to democracy.

31 If TVNZ proceeds with minor party leaders’ and young voters’ debates without The Opportunities Party (TOP), this will have a significantly negative impact on TOP’s chances to be taken seriously by those members of the public looking to vote for a party other than Labour and National. It will send a strong signal to voters that it is not a viable candidate for voting consideration. It may seriously affect TOP’s electoral chances. And given the inclusion of less popular parties, it would be arbitrary and irrational.

The full affidavit: http://liberation.typepad.com/files/affidavitdraft.pdf

The judge probably had no legal basis to rule in favour of TOP, but TVNZ are doing a disservice to taxpayers and to democracy.

Large and incumbent parties (and their supporters) and large media do what the can to deny newcomers a fair chance. Incumbent also have other substantial financial advantages.

The Nation – election debate

This morning on The Nation (early start at 9.25 am) is an election smaller party debate.

  • James Shaw (Greens)
  • Marama Fox (Maori Party)
  • David Seymour (ACT)
  • Gareth Morgan (TOP)
  • Hone Harawira (Mana)

No one from NZ First, I presume a continuation of the refusal to be in anything that includes Gareth Morgan.

I presume United Future wasn’t invited or was dumped.


Shaw starts with a familiar poverty spiel.

Seymour points out that NZ First isn’t there, and also that he is the only leader on the stage who is an electorate MP.

Morgan “we stand or fall on policy. All I can so is sell the message”.

Harawira – I missed what he opened with.

Fox “We’re the party of the future, the country is sick of the red and blue bus.”

Shaw was pushed to state a single priority (and was stopped from his normal 3 key spiel) – he said he would want an act stipulating zero carbon by 2050.

Harawira (feeding kids) and Fox (no GST on primary produce) say that the cost of their number one policies doesn’t matter, it should just be done.

Shaw rules out working with National, more or less – he promotes changing the Government with Labour.


A decent debate as far as it could be, five didn’t seem too many, they all got a few shots in. I doubt it will have changed many votes though.

The panel all picked Marama Fox as the ‘winner’ through her heartfelt personality. Like her or not, agree with her or not, she expresses herself strongly.

Loser – Winston Peters for refusing to take part.

And it was suggested that all the smaller parties were the losers now that the campaign looks like being dominated by two parties only.

And once the media have an excuse to call a two horse race the other party jockeys don’t stand a chance of being heard.

TOPling?

In some ways Gareth Morgan and his TOP party were a refreshingly different addition to the election mix.

They had well researched and specific policies, they weren’t after power, they wanted to influence policies. And Morgan connected well with audiences.

But the last few days in social media they look like toppling over. Perhaps it’s due to the pressure of what has already been a long campaign for Morgan.  Or perhaps it’s the pressure of not getting enough progress in the polls.

Whatever the driver, both Morgan’s PR sidekick Sean Plunket as well as Morgan have been acting like arses in social media, especially on Twitter.

This has involved petulance and abuse, and has gone as far as a sustained period of harassment of Lizzie Marvelly by Plunket.

I think it is destroying any credibility and goodwill they may have had with the media, and that won’t help their chances of getting traction.

I thought that TOP on the cross benches could have added a useful new dimension to Parliament.

But if they keep acting like arrogant ignorant arses they won’t get close (they may already have destroyed any chance they had).

Election Aotearoa Leaders’ Debate

Oriini Kaipara and Heta Gardiner lead the Election Aotearoa Leaders’ Debate.

Tuesday 22 August, 8.00pm
On Maori TV, and streamed live on MāoriTelevision.com and Stuff.co.nz

Kelvin Davis (Labour)
Te Ururoa Flavell (Māori Party)
James Shaw (Greens)
Gareth Morgan (Opportunities Party)
Hone Harawira (Mana)

See: Maori poll semi interesting


NZ First refused to take part in a debate with Gareth Morgan.

A disappointing start – someone sang a song, then a ‘game’ that was fairly lightweight, then to the first break with virtually no debate so far.

The first proper segment was on housing. Mostly vague same old waffle. The one who stood apart and stood out was Morgan, he sounded like he knew what he was talking about and had actual suggested solutions. he got the best response from the crowd.

So far the rest have all been disappointing, notably Davis and Shaw. Harawira began by taking an off topic swipe at Morgan, to the silence it deserved.

It revved up a bit later with a few heated exchanges but I can’t see many votes being won out of that debate.

Shaw repeated the point that National weren’t represented, but it was never explained why National were not there.

Morgan targets 10% for TOP

Extravagant claims about how much of the party vote one will get are not unusual in election campaigns – until recent poll reversals Winston Peters was intimating NZ First could surpass Labour and compete with National.

The Opportunities Party has to get at least 5% to make it into Parliament, but not wanting to cut it fine Gareth Morgan says his aim is double that.

NZH: Morgan says TOP will get 10 per cent, as Green voters look for a new home

Gareth Morgan says the Green Party’s recent troubles could be his party’s gain, as disillusioned greenies will be shopping around for a new environmentally-minded party.

The Greens have always refused to be a cross bench party willing to work with anyone in government to promote environmental policies, and with their collapse this week their may be some voters looking for an environmental alternative.

Morgan’s fledgling The Opportunities Party officially launched its election campaign today in Wellington with little fanfare.

The event was held in an understated church hall in the CBD. Around 60 people attended and of those, 20 were candidates and 15 were media.

A lot more than that have attended TOP meetings around the country.

Morgan, completely straight-faced, told reporters he expected the party to get 10 per cent on election day.

Still unsmiling, he said he expected to get 30 per cent in 2020, before breaking out into a grin: “I always like a challenge.”

Asked where those votes would come from, Morgan said TOP would “skim the cream” from a few parties and would “pick up a few” from the Greens.

“They may well bounce back, but I think if they’re going to lose they’ll lose some to Labour and some to us.”

He admitted that despite securing 4000 paid-up members, TOP’s main barrier to election was getting noticed above the better-funded, old parties. It was depending largely on the “viral spread” of its policies online.

Morgan also seems to be targeting ‘stuff the politicians’ voters who go to NZ First in protest.

1 News:  Gareth Morgan launches scathing attack on major parties at launch of TOP campaign

In a speech filled with colourful and scathing analogies of how the major political parties have failed New Zealand, Gareth Morgan has launched his Opportunities Party election campaign today.

Speaking in Wellington this afternoon, Mr Morgan painted a picture of a New Zealand that has failed its middle and working classes, while the two major parties squabble over political rhetoric, and devise policies simply designed get them into power.

“We’ve already moved the policy debate in this country and we haven’t had a single vote yet,” Mr Morgan said.

“We’re the new kids on the block here, so we don’t get the coverage or funding the old establishment parties have access too, but we have one advantage, we are free of the hatred of old tribal politics.”

Mr Morgan described a toxic New Zealand political culture, where the major parties endlessly play “politics” while suicide stats, homeless numbers, housing affordability and the environment all fall into the abyss.

“What’s the political establishment doing – pretty well nothing. Stuck in an outdated left versus right political ideology with a tax and targeted welfare regime that’s obsolete, they trade insults and argue at the margins while New Zealand, this land of opportunity, slips away.

“They fight not to restore the fairness of our society but to perpetuate their own political power in some vain belief that it’s an ideology that’s need to get this country back on track.”

“Let’s be very clear, TOP doesn’t care who leads the next government. Those who campaign to change from blue to red, from right to left are like a bunch of kids screaming ‘dad’s burnt the dinner, let’s get the dog to cook’.

“What NZ desperately need is ideas to restore opportunities, policies that aren’t designed to get a party into power but to fix the problems we have.”

I would consider voting TOP if they look like being able to get close to 5% (still a big challenge for them).

I presume the Greens will continue to rule out working with National so that leaves them in a weak position on the sideline.

I’d rather have TOP holding the balance of power than Winston.

Aim: TOP dog on cross benches

It’s getting hard to differentiate between attention seeking stunts, a normal day in the campaign, and official party launches these days.

Gareth Morgan and the The Opportunities Party have been campaigning for Months, but they had their official campaign launch today.

Scoop:  Labour will need more than ‘Jacinda Trudeau’: TOP

“Quite clearly, Jacinda’s a great communicator, so that’s good,” said Morgan, who welcomed Labour’s resurgence as “great for New Zealand democracy”.

“It’s an issue of whether that’s sufficient for Labour: the Jacinda Trudeau Effect, I call it,” he said, referring to the impact a young, stylish leader has had on Canadian politics through its Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau.

On TOP:

While TOP’s plan was to “to be a 30 percent party by 2020”, he expected TOP to poll 10 percent at the Sept. 23 election, although modified that to “being realistic” 5 percent and six MPs in the next Parliament, enough potentially to help form a minority government led by either National or Labour.

TOP has polled 2 percent in three published polls and 3 percent in a UMR poll reported this week by Radio New Zealand.

The party hopes that means it has the momentum to make 5 percent by election day. As TOP expects to win no electorate seats, a party vote under 5 percent would be wasted as it would gain no parliamentary seats under New Zealand’s MMP proportional voting system.

Morgan insisted he did not want to become a Cabinet Minister and would look only to provide support to a government from Parliament’s ‘cross-benches’.

Rather than naming non-negotiable ‘bottom line’ policies, if TOP had a choice of partners, it would pick the one that promised to enact the largest number of TOP’s 15 main policies, said Morgan.

“Whoever gives us the most will get the nod.”

So Morgan wants to be TOP dog on the cross benches.

NZ First ‘promises’ top $10b

I think that everyone knows that promises and bottom lines from Winston Peters should be taken with a grain of Epsom salts.

But Peters seems to believe that NZ First can lead the next government, he has suggested they could even top National which means they would get a lot of say in which policies are implemented.

Gareth Morgan has highlighted the spending promises of Peters and appears to be going head to head with Peters. The Opportunities Party and NZ First are competing for floating votes and are targeting those who may vote against the status quo.

Stuff: Gareth Morgan positions himself as alternative to Winston Peters

Gareth Morgan is keen to position himself as an anti-Winston Peters “peacemaker”, shoring up a Government on either side of the political divide without introducing the instability of NZ First.

The firebrand economist and newbie politician released a press release attacking Peters on Monday, along with a costing of his “pork barrel promises”.

Morgan contends Peters’ policies – including the writeoff of student debt, removal of GST from food, and free GP visits for pensioners – would cost $10b every year, with no indication of where that money would come from, other than a vague promise to reduce tax evasion.

Grandiose and expensive promises didn’t matter when NZ First were a 5-10% party. If they become, as looks likely, a 10-20% party then the cost of their policies becomes more pertinent. And if they get into the 20-40% zone then it becomes critical.

So it’s important that the possible cost of NZ First policy promises is examined. The media should be doing this but Morgan has done it for them.

TOP: The post-truth World of Winstonomics

It is not unusual for politicians to make promises they can’t keep. In an attempt to restore some integrity and transparency into politics, The Opportunities Party (TOP) has undertaken means to fully cost all our policies and show where the money is coming from.

Not all parties are this robust however. One party in particular, is writing cheques they can’t cash and therefore making promises they can’t possibly deliver. That party is NZ First and their leader is Winston Peters.

We have filtered through the long list of ‘policy’ supplied by New Zealand First on their websiteand pulled out everything we could find that resembled a concrete and significant election commitment.

Winston’s supporters are rightly looking for a change from the ‘do nothing’ Establishment parties that have led us to a society with rising inequality, forgotten regions and unaffordable housing. However, Winston owes those supporters a set of promises he can actually deliver on –  that is not the case with his current offering.

While some of the policies from NZ First have costings, the majority do not.

We took it upon ourselves to do some analysis and so far the tab has run up to around $10 billion per yearwith the promise of more to come.

By far , the biggest cost on his campaign check book  is his promise to give a universal student allowance and write off student debt for those who stay in New Zealand for the same period of their study…And what about the $4.6 billion price tag? Where is that money going to come from?

Winston has also promised to ‘remove GST off food’ as well as rates. Let’s put aside the fact tinkering with our GST system is fraught with issues, and there are much more efficient ways to make housing and food more affordable. The real problem here is the estimated $3.6 billion price tag.

His plan to return GST from tourism to the regions hits the chord that he has been playing for years, sounding the death of our regions. With minimal detail given, it’s hard to know what this really means let alone estimate the cost; it isn’t clear what money he would give back, to whom, and what that money would be used for. However, if this included both international and domestic tourism, the bill could run up to around $3 billion.

The list of promises goes on with three free GP visits for pensioners a year (there are 600,000 pensioners and at $60 extra per visit, that is $108 million), 1,800 more police ($324 million based on Labour’s calculation of 1000 police), free health checks for year 9 students ($10 million, based on the cost of the B4 school check).

The total bill for these promises alone comes to a $10 billion bill per annum. 

That sort of money cannot just be pulled out of thin air as Winston would have us all believe, and certainly, can’t be paid for by nebulous promises to ‘reduce tax evasion.’

This bill does not even include several of his more nebulous or one-off promises such as:

  • Recarpeting government buildings with wool (costed by the Taxpayers Union at $60-90m)
  • To allocate adequate resources into alternatives to 1080 which he will ban (Dave Hansford on Newsroom put the cost of this at $150m just for half of one national park)
  • He also wants to buy back the shares in SOEs that have been sold, which he will somehow do at the same price they were sold for.
  • In fact, NZ First wants to bring our banks back into New Zealand ownership as well.
  • NZ First also plans to ban inshore fishing and compensate the fishers for their losses; a plan that if it includes paua, lobster and snapper, would cost at least $1.3b.

His commitment to railways of national importance, including a rail line to Marsden Point, will apparently be funded by “revenue generated by railway service charges” and a “combination of Land Transport Fund funding and crown grants.”

And of course Winston’s biggest bribe is a long-term one; his promise to keep the age of eligibility for Superannuation at 65. NZ super alone by 2060 will be soaking up 8c in every dollar we earn, and as a result of this and rising health spending, government debt will have ballooned to twice national income.

All in all, New Zealand First is much in the tradition of Muldoonism – it promises heaps but is more than a little short of funding detail.

Is Winston likely to explain how all his promises would be paid for?

What about TOP’s policy costs?

The Opportunities Party (TOP) has undertaken means to fully cost all our policies and show where the money is coming from.

TOP’s youth UBI

The Opportunities Party has announced a policy that will provide all people aged 18-23 a Unconditional Basic Income of $200 a week. Coincidentally (perhaps) TOP are targeting young people to vote for them.

TOP’s Universal Basic Income

We acknowledge the fact that it’s not only people with families that matter but also people starting out in adult life who need support to help them reach their potential.

The Opportunities Party is proud to release an unconditional basic income for those aged between 18-23 years old1.

For the first five years of adulthood, as people are striking out on their own, they have the security of $10,000 per year, no questions asked.

If you are between 18-23

  • You get $200 per week ($10,000 per year) no questions asked, no hoops to jump through, no bureaucrats telling you what to do.
  • You get to decide the best way to use the money, to pursue your own goals.2
  • You will be financially better off under our policies. This includes your mates who are unemployed, students, parents, apprentices, artists, entrepreneurs, etc. Like we said all your mates.
  • This will take stress off you at a pivotal time in your life. NZ has an appalling rate of youth suicide and financial stress plays a key role in this.

This is the third stage of our UBI (Unconditional Basic Income) implementation, after young families and the elderly.

Background

The UBI is a fundamental reform of our social security system that recognises that the economy is changing and work is becoming more uncertain. Unlike the current antiquated system of targeted welfare, the UBI doesn’t penalise people as they move in and out of work, start a business, or retrain. It doesn’t discriminate between different forms of retraining, such as official government courses or more informal approaches like shadowing someone on their job. It acknowledges the people who undertake unpaid work, without whose endeavour our society would collapse. And most importantly it represents a civilisation dividend wherein an affluent society defines a person’s right to access resources, irrespective of their situation. A backgrounder on a UBI is provided here. 

The concept of a UBI is gaining traction here and around the world. It was featured in the TVNZ series What Next as a way to deal with an increasingly disrupted job market. It is also being piloted in many countries around the world including the Netherlands, Finland and Canada. These pilots are exciting, but they overlook the fact that trials have already been done in the 1970s, and we have had a successful UBI for many years in New Zealand; NZ Super. TOP intends to give young people the same opportunities that we’ve been giving those over 65 for the past forty years.

The Opportunities Party (TOP)’s ultimate goal is to roll out a UBI for everyone. The reason for targeting 18-23 year olds next is because they have the highest levels of unemployment and face the greatest challenge getting into the labour market.

So the youth UBI is a start, they want a UBI for everyone (even children?) but this is a starting point.

Giving a UBI to everyone would require a major overhaul of our tax and welfare systems. TOP have related policies:

TOP will really struggle to beat the 5% threshold, and if they do they will really struggle to get National or Labour to get on board with this policy.

I don’t think National would agree to this at all, Labour might be tempted, and Greens may be keen, but NZ First will have their own priorities.

There is a discussion at Reddit on this, and Gareth Morgan responds to some comments.

Don’t judge a UBI as just a left wing concept. It has appeal across the spectrum. More info here http://www.top.org.nz/what_is_the_ubi_why_do_we_want_it

Good article on that here – https://medium.com/basic-income/wouldnt-unconditional-basic-income-just-cause-massive-inflation-fe71d69f15e7

The only condition of eligibility is the same as the basic eligibility for any benefit:

You must also be a New Zealand citizen or permanent resident who normally lives here, and who has lived here for at least two years at one time since becoming a New Zealand citizen or permanent resident.

More faq’s here…. http://www.top.org.nz/youth_ubi_faq

I think a UBI is an interesting concept and well worth considering.

But I think a major drawback is the cost of implementing one. If it ensures that no one on a low income or benefit or pension is worse off it will be very expensive initially.

If Winston Peters has any say there will be no drop in Universal Super – I doubt National or Labour would dare drop that entitlement either – so that sets a fairly high entry level for a UBI.

Unless New Zealand suddenly strikes oil in a big way, or perhaps patents a new cheap clean energy source, I don’t think we can afford a UBI in practice.