Gareth Morgan's new political party

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Gareth Morgan's new political party

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11

4177 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2990

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1664659 6-Nov-2016 19:29

Fred99:

That Stuff poll will be ruffling some feathers. 58:42 saying they'd vote for GM

I don't need a lecture on the lack of any statistical validity of such polls, but I'm trying to think of any potentially "disruptive" new entrant to NZ politics who'd have ever been able to get well into double digits on any similar poll over the past 30 years or so.

The sample size of that poll is 7200 which is nothing to be sneezed at. With some decent policy, and some good people on the list, I think this party could well hold the balance of power in parliament.

They main challenges they will face will be Gareth's lack of charisma, and the media's obsession with cats (note the current government has the goal of having NZ pest free by 2050 anyway)

Re the poling, there is this example that can be used.

Obviously this didn't turn out so well, but there were other factors in play here, this Poll was taken very early in the Internet Parties life, and the party then proceeded to flop in a dramatic way.

The merger of the Internet Party with Mana was the obvious issue. Supporters of both were put off. A tech focused parties supporters (Tech Enthusiasts & Professionals, IP legal professionals, and tech enthusiasts youth (predominantly from middle class or wealthy backgrounds)) are unlikely to have policy views that align with that of Mana (a extremely far left party). Likewise Mana voters were unlikely to care to much about law reform in the area of Intellectual Property, or to support dotcom given his often excessive displays of wealth.

While Laila Harre did well under the circumstances, her far left views and political history, and s lack of specific knowledge on the Intellectual property issues meant her appointment came as a bit of a disappointment.

The late stages of the campaign also turned out to be a bit of a flop. The Media became fixated on the "Moment of truth" event, where it John Keys conspiracy with Hollywood was expected to be proven. The event was seen in the media as a flop, which hurt the credibility of the party.

I think most stuff readers understand what Gareth stands for given his previous books etc. I doubt there will be any massive shocks in the opportunities campaign to cause a massive flop like the Internet Party.

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15468

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1664663 6-Nov-2016 20:00

Fred99:

That Stuff poll will be ruffling some feathers. 58:42 saying they'd vote for GM

I don't need a lecture on the lack of any statistical validity of such polls, but I'm trying to think of any potentially "disruptive" new entrant to NZ politics who'd have ever been able to get well into double digits on any similar poll over the past 30 years or so.

I think everything you'd need to know about the credibility of that poll should be summed up nicely in the SECOND word of your poll.

Scott3

4177 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2990

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1664688 6-Nov-2016 21:23

networkn:

I think everything you'd need to know about the credibility of that poll should be summed up nicely in the SECOND word of your poll.

I assume you are referring to the word "You", in regards to selection bias in such online polls.

The sample obviously only includes the 7200 people who chose to open the article. Even so 48% is quite a high number of people who will "definitely" vote for a party prior to it releasing it's list or any policy.

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15468

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1664690 6-Nov-2016 21:27

Scott3:

networkn:

I think everything you'd need to know about the credibility of that poll should be summed up nicely in the SECOND word of your poll.

I assume you are referring to the word "You", in regards to selection bias in such online polls.

The sample obviously only includes the 7200 people who chose to open the article. Even so 48% is quite a high number of people who will "definitely" vote for a party prior to it releasing it's list or any policy.

It's a stuff poll, to be fair I wouldn't trust the judgement of the average person who spends any significant amount of time on that site :)

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#1664750 7-Nov-2016 06:57

networkn:

It's a stuff poll, to be fair I wouldn't trust the judgement of the average person who spends any significant amount of time on that site :)

Fair comment. Perhaps we should be concerned about how many people go to that site.

dafman

4054 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2652

Trusted

#1664764 7-Nov-2016 08:12

networkn:

Scott3:

networkn:

I think everything you'd need to know about the credibility of that poll should be summed up nicely in the SECOND word of your poll.

I assume you are referring to the word "You", in regards to selection bias in such online polls.

The sample obviously only includes the 7200 people who chose to open the article. Even so 48% is quite a high number of people who will "definitely" vote for a party prior to it releasing it's list or any policy.

It's a stuff poll, to be fair I wouldn't trust the judgement of the average person who spends any significant amount of time on that site :)

Sorry to be the one to break this to you, but people whose judgement you personally don't trust do get to vote. Sorry bout that.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Lizard1977

2134 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 627

ID Verified

#1664779 7-Nov-2016 09:21

tdgeek:

/snip

Thats the thing. He wants to get things done, and stop the lack of inertia with career politicians etc. Why start a party? That wont help. They wont govern, they wont get any seats. What he should be doing is supporting young politicians and preparing them for Govt. Then any efforts he does will have more impact as they will be "in" Govt in the future. But making a party wont really accomplish anything. It strikes me as a cool thing to muck around with, as he must know he can't make an impact with yet another little party. In the next or election after that, he could well have a number of groomed young politicians who can run in the party he supports

I read the press release last Friday and had a similar kind of reaction. While I do have some respect for Gareth Morgan, and he strikes me as reasonably intelligent, I was put off by the undertones of his message. One laden example: "I’m reasonably sure there does exist a suite of policy initiatives that will do this. But we have to break from the lethargy that Establishment parties and career politicians have us locked in. Their fear of losing votes makes them champions of inertia and only ever reluctant proponents of incremental change."

When I read this, I heard echoes of the messages that Trump and Brexiteers have been trumpeting (no pun intended) over the last few months. There seems to be a backlash against anyone who would dare to be a "professional" politician. The capitalisation of "Establishment" parties reinforces the "othering" of those long-serving politicians, and I read this as a dog whistle attack that equates "amateurism" with "authentic", and suggests that anyone who commits to a career in public service is somehow conniving, greedy, and self-serving. While there are undoubtedly those that would feather their own nests, I think this has been overplayed beyond reality.

I also picked up on the phrases "champions of inertia" (his emphasis) and "reluctant proponents of incremental change." When I read these phrases it told me that he clearly doesn't understand how government works (or at least is choosing to ignore it for the sake of promoting his party). The "inertia" he rejects is a necessary evil, part of the stable government that prevents a far greater "evil" for society - radical change. While there are those that will cheer for such radical change (and for those who are extremely disadvantaged in current society, such change may seem appealing). I think back to the politics of the 1908s where Rogernomics (which many now agree was ultimately necessary) caused a great deal of damage and strife to the country as much because of the speed and manner of the "radical change", and the pain that was inflicted because of the way change was enacted. People will always debate the details of the changes, the impacts, and the methods, but I take it as a salutary lesson of what happens when radical change is adopted. "Inertia" isn't exciting, it doesn't make big, drastic change, but it does permit small, achievable changes which are more sustainable over the long term. In my job, I see lots of people seduced by the excitement of big, expensive capital works projects, but bored and dismissive of smaller, harder, less tangible changes. In my experience, though, it's the latter which has the greater impact, but because it's not "sexy" it gets ignored.

The press release left me cold. It was clear to me that Gareth Morgan doesn't really understand the problem he claims to have identified - inertia within government. Adding another party to the mix doesn't solve that problem. If he gets over 5% then he may be able to secure one or two policy trophies, but that's a very short term approach. TDgeek's suggestion would go a lot further, and gets to the heart of the matter. If our politicians aren't effective and delivering the change the people want, then change the politicians. One way to do that is to vote for different politicians, but a better way is to educate future politicians to think differently, to understand how change is best achieved. It upskills our future politicians and brings in a new generation of people who can work within the system to make lasting change. A widespread civics education for kids would also help people to understand what democracy is, and how it works.

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#1664822 7-Nov-2016 10:09

Well, your example resonates with me.

One of the inevitable outcomes of any power system (and bureaucracy in particular) is that (a) the power gradually gets concentrated to fewer people, and (b) they institutionalise it, so that the system concentrates on protecting itself, in particular preventing change that redistributes power. So, like it or not, there *is* an Establishment. Which, like it or not, has been increasing the disparity between itself and the rest. At some point, change has to be *forced* on the Establishment by someone outside it.

That's the basis of Brexit and Trump and Sanders... people at large are deciding that it is time for a change. The Establishment is circling the wagons.

Whilst I agree that inertia is often a good thing, too much inertia is *bad*. The longer change is delayed, the more radical the change needed to share power (and the fruits of the economy) equitably again, and the more pain is felt. Rogernomics was IMHO an excessive reaction to Muldoon's policies, which were in place long after their use-by date. What's more, delay is a standard tactic to resist change. For example, *nothing* has changed in NZ's trust laws following the foreign trusts debacle. Of course, no change is good for the Establishment, who can continue to use NZ to evade/avoid taxes overseas.

Just the existence of Morgan's party will influence the Establishment, both Labour and National. If Morgan gets 5% (or more), it sends a clear signal to the Establishment that *they* *need* to change their policies, and if they don't they will in time lose a *lot* of power. The Greens are a clear example... lots of National and Labour policy wouldn't be policy if the Greens didn't exist.

"Working within the system" is all very well, but if the system is set up to resist change (as it inevitably is), then very little will be achieved.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1664826 7-Nov-2016 10:18

Gareth Morgan if he continues with his new sand pit toy will only split the NZ First and Labour votes. National voters wont be interested in him so the "change" that he wants will not happen.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15468

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1664828 7-Nov-2016 10:26

dafman:

Sorry to be the one to break this to you, but people whose judgement you personally don't trust do get to vote. Sorry bout that.

I would suggest that there is a big difference to clicking a link on a clickbait news site, than getting off your behind and lining up to vote on election day.

I found the comment made earlier by someone who suggested 7200 people clicked on a poll for a party who has yet to indicate policy, quite telling. Having said that, there were people on both sides of that vote who that applied to.

Lizard1977

2134 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 627

ID Verified

#1664841 7-Nov-2016 10:32

Frankv, I agree with a lot of what you have written. Too much of anything - inertia, radical change - is implicitly a problem. But my concern is with people who equate "any change" with "good change", without evaluating what the change will achieve, how it will achieve it. Brexit was a good example, with many people regretting their vote once they realised what it meant, and what it would do to them personally, hence the reactive efforts to "make Brexit work." A lot of that damage limitation could have been avoided if there hadn't been the lemming-like rush to "change" on the basis that the current situation was "bad". I also think many people see the system resisting change as the problem itself rather than a function of how power systems work (as you've described it). They therefore make the "politician's syllogism" - 1. We must do something. 2. This is something. 3. Therefore we must do this. See Yes, Minister

Bringing up the Green Party is a good example. It took them years of labouring within the system to get even close to the policy table, which many would take as further evidence of the system's inertia but which I would cite as proof of how the "system" operates to "vet" ideas and proposals to avoid reactionary change. But Morgan's Party doesn't challenge the inertia he claims to be acting against, he simply reinforces it by introducing yet another party to the system, which arguably dilutes the potential for new policies to be brought forward (for reference, look at the Member's Ballot which is overflowing with pet projects).

The only thing he offers by establishing a new party is a vehicle to propose ambitious policy ideas that can be negotiated with the major parties in power. But as has been shown over the last 20 years of MMP politics, by necessity those ambitious proposals will be negotiated downwards to something which has more broad appeal and popularity. The tactic can be described as "aiming for the stars and settling for the moon." It's not new by any means, it's just another riff of the status quo. So why has he done it like this? Presumably because if he worked through an existing party then he would have to submit to a centralised party manifesto, whereas with his own party it allows him to set the agenda. I think this is where the "ego" accusations come from.

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1664884 7-Nov-2016 11:16

MikeB4:

Gareth Morgan if he continues with his new sand pit toy will only split the NZ First and Labour votes. National voters wont be interested in him so the "change" that he wants will not happen.

I actually don't believe that's what would happen.

There's been an understandable knee-jerk response that this is Morgan on an ego-trip (something I doubt) and that he's on "The Left" - something I also doubt.

Probably closer to Bob Jones' NZ Party, who never won a seat but gained 12% of the vote in pre MMP days. Bob saw need for reform - didn't like the "status quo" of the Muldoon National Party - was a colourful and outspoken character but I don't think "ego" motivated him - he wanted change. Despite electoral failure under FPP, he got most of the change he sought anyway - by shifting the entire debate.

It's one thing to look back in history to conclude that Muldoon was hapless, but the reality was that he was astute, clever, not as socially conservative as some like to think, his failing was that he stuck to the orthodox economic theory he'd spent his entire career promoting, but the world changed, quickly rendering it (and him) obsolete. Those circumstance NZ faced in the early '80s are IMO far less "his fault for being a poor PM" than many seem to believe.

I'd expect TOP to take some NZF votes, but I suspect that he'll take mainly National Party votes. This because Labour have consistently failed to put up viable alternative economic policies and a credible PM candidate. Those who may be concerned and less than happy on environmental and social policy performance have (or had) one option - and a Lab/Green coalition is (rightly or wrongly) portrayed as a very scary thing for the NZ economy. If Morgan presents a viable and less threatening alternative - I have no doubt at all that he will take votes from National.

Timing wise, I don't know. NZ was in very deep economic trouble when Bob Jones got involved. NZ is superficially doing quite well relative to other economies, but IMO we're very vulnerable to imported crisis due to high (private) debt levels and global instability (isolationism/trade war). The arguably good/stable economic management of this and previous governments would become very hard to defend if and when things take a turn for the worse.

jonathan18

7415 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2850

ID Verified

Trusted

#1664887 7-Nov-2016 11:23

Where are the votes going to come from?

To be honest, I have no idea. I think they’re going to come from across the board. The way I would describe it is they’re going to come from people who care, beyond just their immediate vicinity, either themselves – which basically covers ACT, doesn’t it? – or a bit beyond. This is going to appeal, I think, to people who care about the whole of New Zealand society and even more importantly, their children and their grandchildren. The sort of stuff we will talk about has long-term impacts for New Zealand, rather than what the focus of establishment parties is, which is not just fire-fighting but day-to-day management of the political system.

What about the term blue-green to characterise you. Is that about right?

I wouldn’t object to that label. I guess if anything on economics I’d be bluer than I would be red, but I do get very angry with the far right of the economic spectrum in New Zealand, those people who think that tax is theft and I’m-OK-Jack-pull-up-the-ladder. That kind of libertarian thing – I have no time for it, I’m very antagonistic towards that. But I’m very much a fan of free markets as economists describe them, which is free entry and exit, which means no concentrated power, very against oligopolies for example. So for me, that is what free market economics is. That’s sort of my heritage. But I’m pretty strong on social justice issues and very strong on the environment, because I think that’s our biggest asset. I want to make money out of it, through enhancing it. I think we can, I think New Zealanders can make a lot of money.

Source: Spinoff interview with Morgan

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#1664896 7-Nov-2016 11:48

Fred99:

I'd expect TOP to take some NZF votes, but I suspect that he'll take mainly National Party votes. This because Labour have consistently failed to put up viable alternative economic policies and a credible PM candidate.

I think he'll take mainly Labour votes for exactly the same reason. Labour is no longer the "Working Man's" party. It's run by lawyers and business consultants who implicitly accept the Establishment's philosophy.

Those who may be concerned and less than happy on environmental and social policy performance have (or had) one option - and a Lab/Green coalition is (rightly or wrongly) portrayed as a very scary thing for the NZ economy. If Morgan presents a viable and less threatening alternative - I have no doubt at all that he will take votes from National.

Interesting, but I still disagree. I think he'll take votes from Lab/Green because they're supposed to be the Opposition, but aren't doing any real opposing. People who want the status quo will vote National, regardless of whether TOP is there or not. People who want change will vote TOP as a less-scary change-promoter than the Greens, and more-effective change-promoter than Labour. Assuming that TOP comes up with some viable policies that will actually make changes.

Timing wise, I don't know. NZ was in very deep economic trouble when Bob Jones got involved. NZ is superficially doing quite well relative to other economies, but IMO we're very vulnerable to imported crisis due to high (private) debt levels and global instability (isolationism/trade war). The arguably good/stable economic management of this and previous governments would become very hard to defend if and when things take a turn for the worse.

I agree. But, NZ now is similar to the 1980s, in that Govt borrowing has been sustaining the economy. Unless there's a huge up-turn soon (which doesn't look likely), things will go downhill when those chickens come home to roost. Timing-wise, GM had to kick TOP off now for it to gain sufficient traction before the election.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1664926 7-Nov-2016 12:20

I don't agree about Govt. borrowing. See graph below showing pre and post GFC, it's been well managed by both the Clark Labour government and Key National government.

Net household debt however is 100% of GDP, most of it mortgage debt, total private debt is over $500 billion.

That's 10 complete Christchurch rebuilds worth of debt, or about 30 years revenue from Fonterra.

To put that in perspective, on a per-capita basis, it's much higher than the USA's $20 trillion debt mountain, even more if expressed as % of GDP.

However of course, that relatively small government debt is because of a buoyant economy - built on debt. It's private borrowing that has been sustaining the economy - and a lot of it (mortgage/household) is "dead" unproductive debt underpinned by "assets" much of which are probably a bubble.

Morgan knows what could happen. If it does, it's going to be very, very unpleasant indeed.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11