TOP Leader Raf Manji details Teal Card plan and responds to challenges; He talks about TOP's views on not wanting ministerial roles or a supply & confidence deal; He sees strong chance in Ilam
Things are feeling pretty 2008y. Clayton’s bailouts for the super-rich banks. More Quantitative Easing for those with the socialise the losses addiction. The mantra needs to change from too big to fail, to too sick to save. Here in Aotearoa the reluctance to offer meaningful help to those in real poverty- families living on under $50k still rules. Let them eat cake has a corollary.
Thanks Maurice. We have a history of tolerance + kicking down and imprisoning the poor, which means social unrest hasn't really worked for us. It will need an awful lot of voting and activism to change.
Totally agree. Although as long as we can't move beyond systemic 'there is no alternative' thinking, it's hard to see how these institutions won't just remain too big to fail indefinitely. The trouble is everything is so concentrated and intertwined (ironically, but unrelatedly, like TOP's policies) so that it's near impossible to remove a sick one without the rest of the tower falling down... You can't help but think a bit conspiritorally when there was absolutely zero hesitancy and a fully-formed crisis plan ready within minutes of Credit Suisse's wobble
Bernard, it may be just me, but after your introduction, the first 50 seconds of Raf's reply is silent. It gives the impression he's go nothing to say… Can you fix this?
While TOP’s policies discussed here are intriguing, as an urban young professional who has voted for the Greens in the past, I’m not sure I’m particularly convinced by Rafe’s apparent ambivalence about which party and which PM leads the government.
The past few years have shown us that governments are responsible for responding to much more than can fit within a policy manifesto. Values and temperament have a big impact in a crisis and shape how a government will handle a pandemic, a natural disaster, or whatever else the coming years will throw at us.
Will I be OK with voting for TOP to increase the chance of their policies becoming a reality if the cost is losing out on casting a voice for which party leads the government? I’m not sure yet.
Interesting listen, thanks Bernard. I actually don't think I fully understand all the supply/confidence stuff in detail, but the impression I had was if National or Labour form a majority (perhaps via coalition with Green/Act/TPM/NZF/whoever) then TOP will opt to be a wet bus ticket?
...I should add, I expect I'm not the only NZ-registered voter who might walk into a voting booth not understanding the subtleties of this on election day
That's a fair interpretation, although Raf says TOP would be constructive. Btw, there's no way National would form a coalition with Green/TPM/NZF. Only ACT and TOP.
Raf makes a good point about stagnation of MMP. Thought it hasn't completely 'stabilized' yet, the Effective Number of parties both electoral and Parliamentary has been steadily trending downwards for some time now. Also worth noting that the only times a 'new' party has entered Parliament since MMP was introduced, they've been led by someone who was already a sitting MP.
Have to say, seems like an odd pitch from TOP to be saying "vote for us to not have any influence on who forms the next Government, even if we get 5%". Not sure how that's the strongest message to their supporters. Also questionable how they think they could turn determinedly not providing guarantees of Confidence or Supply into influence over a Government, especially because a major party would probably prefer to have the guaranteed support to having them sit on the cross benches, so they'd have to negotiate *away* some influence in order to stay there. It also means they don't have any access to officials, or to conversations between Ministers.
Interesting thoughts. I suspect though TOP will have to trade away both supply and confidence to get their policies through. I doubt National or Labour want a potential land mine sitting there on the cross benches ready to vote no confidence at any stage. I doubt they'd go to the Governor General to say they had the confidence of the house.
Agree, this alludes to the same challenge I noted yesterday (before the Teal card announcement) about what we should realistically expect to get if we vote in TOP
I recall to myself though, on Raf's point about not being eager to go into coalition, that Jeanette Fitzsimons recounted to me once long ago that she and Rod Donald were called into Helen Clark's office following the 1999 election and asked what Ministerial Portfolios they would like (one imagines as a precursor to more detailed negotiation), and their refusal to pick one up was in no small part because they had a caucus full of first-time MPs that they felt needed coaching into a team by their Co-leadership.
It strikes me that from such a perspective, TOP not going into Government in its first term as a Parliamentary party isn't the worst choice.
I find him convincing on policy, naive on the question of influence minus a confidence and supply deal, and entirely unconvincing on the question he basically dodged, which is why I should risk wasting a vote on a party that hasn’t shown it can get into parliament. If a vote for the Greens is wasted because they have no real leverage over Labour, and Barnard has basically convinced me there, then why is a vote for TOP not wasted? If it’s just a question of voting my ideals, that leaves me back with the Greens.
Good point on wastage without at least a good poll result in Ilam. Te Pāti Māori have some progressive policies and swing both ways. They are also assured to get back in.
well, it's always appealing to get some new ideas, and a party that is far out of actually having to deliver can throw them out there. Some sound good, some more meh. New medical/nursing school - funded - hell yeah! Outward bound program for all - meh.
For a party that prides itself on its numbers, and laying out the detail, I find it suprisingly difficult to either find or imagine where the dollars come from, in a "revenue neutral" way, to fund TOP's UBI. 3.5M people (aged 18-65) times $16,500 is $60 billion you're needing, each and every year. Would have liked to press on that. There's only $20B in transfer payments and subsidies section of the 2023 budget, outside of super, so you could wipe those lines to zero and it won't come close to paying for it. LVT - nope. Tax bracket changes - that's going to the teal deal. Hmmm
They're also costing the delivery of the entire 'Teal Card suite' at $20m (for reference, MSD currently spend ~$1.2b on delivering their (admittedly larger) welfare suite) so maybe they're just planning to be super-ultra-efficient or something?
I find the course idea very interesting. Think it'd appeal to conservatives tbh, has the same flavour as a bootcamp with just enough of a voluntary nautre/ an incentive to also maybe appeal to the more left leaning 😂
I wonder if that could be expanded on when you have your first baby - for example much better funded extended antenatal style classes/ postnatal classes that would equip parents with knowledge around evidence based feeding, sleeping, brain development and car seat safety. Combined with extended parental leave of course. If we're talking about setting people up for the future from early stage, then evidence points to front loading right from day one. I see this as being complimentary instead of alternative because off the back end of the age group TOP is targeting is the average age of a first time parent (30 last I checked) so I feel like you're developing great adults for parenting and then also can set up the next generation. Just thinking aloud!
Formative years is what matters to children. Hence supporting their Mothers being critical. Lots of Kiwi kids are latchkey kids which is not good and needs sorting as it effects womens earnings really badly as the laws for women are ignored. I truly think that schools should be involved in this and kids have at least 10 weeks a year to use on civics and skills. And from a younger age. Tertiary support for free education and or training and student support should take care of the rest. Having the returns desired without entering overthinkers anonymous or having to create id’s and apps. Largely unnecessary and at worst positively Orwellian.
I am a bit confused by how this 'no confidence only supply policy by policy' stance.
Betwen Simeon Brown's roads, roads & more rodes, Seymour's let's make the poor even poorer or Luxon's boot camps what sort of progressive policies can emerge to justify allowing the Nat-ACT combination to govern?
Maybe it's a strategy to win the conservative voters of Ilam.
You are providing gallant service Bernard. You direct us to see a vote for Greens as a folly and show us instead a beautiful teal card. RAF is a really good guy and TOP has some good policies. Last elections I did give ToP a vote but just the local one to encourage them but I still gave party vote to Greens. I too want James to storm out but I don’t know if Tauruses do that unless there’s even more provocation. Can you dream up more Bernard!
His coalition strategy is going to be unworkable- much of the work he wants will come down to regulations and executive action rather than legislation. In the past he's talked about being on cross benches and having access to the public sector policy analysts - he won't get any resourcing without a ministerial role. I hope they consider a clear set of priorities (beyond "implement our complete policy") for a cooperation agreement and consider taking Ministerial posts.
Thanks Bernard for the roundup.
Things are feeling pretty 2008y. Clayton’s bailouts for the super-rich banks. More Quantitative Easing for those with the socialise the losses addiction. The mantra needs to change from too big to fail, to too sick to save. Here in Aotearoa the reluctance to offer meaningful help to those in real poverty- families living on under $50k still rules. Let them eat cake has a corollary.
Thanks Maurice. We have a history of tolerance + kicking down and imprisoning the poor, which means social unrest hasn't really worked for us. It will need an awful lot of voting and activism to change.
Totally agree. Although as long as we can't move beyond systemic 'there is no alternative' thinking, it's hard to see how these institutions won't just remain too big to fail indefinitely. The trouble is everything is so concentrated and intertwined (ironically, but unrelatedly, like TOP's policies) so that it's near impossible to remove a sick one without the rest of the tower falling down... You can't help but think a bit conspiritorally when there was absolutely zero hesitancy and a fully-formed crisis plan ready within minutes of Credit Suisse's wobble
Bernard, it may be just me, but after your introduction, the first 50 seconds of Raf's reply is silent. It gives the impression he's go nothing to say… Can you fix this?
Same
Same
Same!
Thanks Russell. You're right. A technical snafu on my part. I have fixed in the podcast above there now. cheers Bernard
No pressure Ilam...
Keen to see this one opened to the public, the extra air time for Raf's narrative feels like a democratic thing to do
Yep. It's open now. Especially now it's fixed! Thanks for your questions Mr Anderson.
Great interview. Thank you, Bernard.
While TOP’s policies discussed here are intriguing, as an urban young professional who has voted for the Greens in the past, I’m not sure I’m particularly convinced by Rafe’s apparent ambivalence about which party and which PM leads the government.
The past few years have shown us that governments are responsible for responding to much more than can fit within a policy manifesto. Values and temperament have a big impact in a crisis and shape how a government will handle a pandemic, a natural disaster, or whatever else the coming years will throw at us.
Will I be OK with voting for TOP to increase the chance of their policies becoming a reality if the cost is losing out on casting a voice for which party leads the government? I’m not sure yet.
Interesting listen, thanks Bernard. I actually don't think I fully understand all the supply/confidence stuff in detail, but the impression I had was if National or Labour form a majority (perhaps via coalition with Green/Act/TPM/NZF/whoever) then TOP will opt to be a wet bus ticket?
...I should add, I expect I'm not the only NZ-registered voter who might walk into a voting booth not understanding the subtleties of this on election day
at least two of us, probably more :-)
Yep. MMP has tied us all up in knots.
That's a fair interpretation, although Raf says TOP would be constructive. Btw, there's no way National would form a coalition with Green/TPM/NZF. Only ACT and TOP.
Raf makes a good point about stagnation of MMP. Thought it hasn't completely 'stabilized' yet, the Effective Number of parties both electoral and Parliamentary has been steadily trending downwards for some time now. Also worth noting that the only times a 'new' party has entered Parliament since MMP was introduced, they've been led by someone who was already a sitting MP.
Have to say, seems like an odd pitch from TOP to be saying "vote for us to not have any influence on who forms the next Government, even if we get 5%". Not sure how that's the strongest message to their supporters. Also questionable how they think they could turn determinedly not providing guarantees of Confidence or Supply into influence over a Government, especially because a major party would probably prefer to have the guaranteed support to having them sit on the cross benches, so they'd have to negotiate *away* some influence in order to stay there. It also means they don't have any access to officials, or to conversations between Ministers.
Interesting thoughts. I suspect though TOP will have to trade away both supply and confidence to get their policies through. I doubt National or Labour want a potential land mine sitting there on the cross benches ready to vote no confidence at any stage. I doubt they'd go to the Governor General to say they had the confidence of the house.
Agree, this alludes to the same challenge I noted yesterday (before the Teal card announcement) about what we should realistically expect to get if we vote in TOP
I recall to myself though, on Raf's point about not being eager to go into coalition, that Jeanette Fitzsimons recounted to me once long ago that she and Rod Donald were called into Helen Clark's office following the 1999 election and asked what Ministerial Portfolios they would like (one imagines as a precursor to more detailed negotiation), and their refusal to pick one up was in no small part because they had a caucus full of first-time MPs that they felt needed coaching into a team by their Co-leadership.
It strikes me that from such a perspective, TOP not going into Government in its first term as a Parliamentary party isn't the worst choice.
I find him convincing on policy, naive on the question of influence minus a confidence and supply deal, and entirely unconvincing on the question he basically dodged, which is why I should risk wasting a vote on a party that hasn’t shown it can get into parliament. If a vote for the Greens is wasted because they have no real leverage over Labour, and Barnard has basically convinced me there, then why is a vote for TOP not wasted? If it’s just a question of voting my ideals, that leaves me back with the Greens.
Good point on wastage without at least a good poll result in Ilam. Te Pāti Māori have some progressive policies and swing both ways. They are also assured to get back in.
well, it's always appealing to get some new ideas, and a party that is far out of actually having to deliver can throw them out there. Some sound good, some more meh. New medical/nursing school - funded - hell yeah! Outward bound program for all - meh.
For a party that prides itself on its numbers, and laying out the detail, I find it suprisingly difficult to either find or imagine where the dollars come from, in a "revenue neutral" way, to fund TOP's UBI. 3.5M people (aged 18-65) times $16,500 is $60 billion you're needing, each and every year. Would have liked to press on that. There's only $20B in transfer payments and subsidies section of the 2023 budget, outside of super, so you could wipe those lines to zero and it won't come close to paying for it. LVT - nope. Tax bracket changes - that's going to the teal deal. Hmmm
They're also costing the delivery of the entire 'Teal Card suite' at $20m (for reference, MSD currently spend ~$1.2b on delivering their (admittedly larger) welfare suite) so maybe they're just planning to be super-ultra-efficient or something?
I find the course idea very interesting. Think it'd appeal to conservatives tbh, has the same flavour as a bootcamp with just enough of a voluntary nautre/ an incentive to also maybe appeal to the more left leaning 😂
I wonder if that could be expanded on when you have your first baby - for example much better funded extended antenatal style classes/ postnatal classes that would equip parents with knowledge around evidence based feeding, sleeping, brain development and car seat safety. Combined with extended parental leave of course. If we're talking about setting people up for the future from early stage, then evidence points to front loading right from day one. I see this as being complimentary instead of alternative because off the back end of the age group TOP is targeting is the average age of a first time parent (30 last I checked) so I feel like you're developing great adults for parenting and then also can set up the next generation. Just thinking aloud!
Formative years is what matters to children. Hence supporting their Mothers being critical. Lots of Kiwi kids are latchkey kids which is not good and needs sorting as it effects womens earnings really badly as the laws for women are ignored. I truly think that schools should be involved in this and kids have at least 10 weeks a year to use on civics and skills. And from a younger age. Tertiary support for free education and or training and student support should take care of the rest. Having the returns desired without entering overthinkers anonymous or having to create id’s and apps. Largely unnecessary and at worst positively Orwellian.
I am a bit confused by how this 'no confidence only supply policy by policy' stance.
Betwen Simeon Brown's roads, roads & more rodes, Seymour's let's make the poor even poorer or Luxon's boot camps what sort of progressive policies can emerge to justify allowing the Nat-ACT combination to govern?
Maybe it's a strategy to win the conservative voters of Ilam.
You are providing gallant service Bernard. You direct us to see a vote for Greens as a folly and show us instead a beautiful teal card. RAF is a really good guy and TOP has some good policies. Last elections I did give ToP a vote but just the local one to encourage them but I still gave party vote to Greens. I too want James to storm out but I don’t know if Tauruses do that unless there’s even more provocation. Can you dream up more Bernard!
His coalition strategy is going to be unworkable- much of the work he wants will come down to regulations and executive action rather than legislation. In the past he's talked about being on cross benches and having access to the public sector policy analysts - he won't get any resourcing without a ministerial role. I hope they consider a clear set of priorities (beyond "implement our complete policy") for a cooperation agreement and consider taking Ministerial posts.