TOP skepticism is good but show me how else the Left wins?
Was it really a ‘train wreck’? Have your say on Opportunity and its policies
Former prime minister Helen Clark called Opportunity leader Qiulae Wong’s TVNZ interview a “train wreck”. Labour leader Chris Hipkins followed up by saying some of the party’s policies were “incredibly unrealistic”. ACT leader David Seymour said it was “getting harder and harder to take these guys seriously”.
The criticism, which followed Wong’s appearance on TVNZ’s Q+A on Sunday, along with her party’s policy to “clean up politics” by limiting donations and lobbying, has put renewed scrutiny on Opportunity as it campaigns on a land value tax, a Citizen’s Income, and plans to automate work currently carried out by more than 2000 public servants.
Clark said Wong gave “simplistic responses” while defending some of the party’s key policies, while Hipkins said the interview exposed weaknesses in Opportunity’s proposals, particularly its land tax and public service plans.
Wong pushed back, saying she disagreed with Clark and inviting Labour’s current leadership to debate the party directly.
Stuff
I’m not voting for TOP so I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do feel Q has had a rough time of this.
I watched the interview. I thought Jack was really good and was his usual brilliant self in challenging questions.
I thought it was a hard interview for Q.
Their Party is formed as a disrupter and their desire to lift the taxation yoke off labour and place it directly on land is a huge change.
It funds their UBI, which is also a huge change.
So getting grilled on the warp those disruptions create is hard.
But that doesn’t mean TOP are wrong to try and make those big changes.
What is unfair to me is the double standards.
Ok, go after TOP but how about some critical analysis of the other Parties?
NZF are seriously arguing to strip 700 000 permanent residents of their voting rights!
ACT are seriously arguing to half the Government!
These are huge changes that would cause enormous problems, yet its TOP getting the grilling?
In terms of the issue of TOP wanting to limit big money while getting big donations, Nick Rockel who worked for the donor has some interesting insights…
I know one of these TOP board members: a man known as AJ Bertenshaw, whom I worked for a decade ago at his company, Serato, which makes DJ software.
AJ now goes by the name Alan Wilderland, and in addition to being a board member, he is the Opportunity Party’s largest financial donor. With his marketing ability, technical background, and financial resources, I’m not surprised that TOP have probably run the best social media game in town.
AJ and I used to have political chats, and I recall his frustration that there wasn’t a Blue Green option for people who cared about the environment but weren’t necessarily screaming socialists. Responding with my Green hat on, I told him I thought most people who cared about the environment also cared about people, but he wasn’t convinced.
AJ is quite eccentric, absolutely loaded, and one of the most entitled people I have ever met. I once spent days organising specialist movers to take a large 3D printer from the office to his house under strict instructions that no damage should occur; it had absolutely nothing to do with the business or my job.
Don’t get me wrong, I liked AJ. In my experience, it’s pretty rare to be able to speak freely about politics in a management role. He’s highly intelligent, but I sure as hell wouldn’t want him to choose which government we get.
…look I’m a math guy.
How do we beat this Government and get to 51% without TOP, especially if National and TPM generate an overhang?
Independent Media is more important than ever, especially in the lead up to the Election. TDB is the largest Left Wing Blog in NZ and we have been operating for 13 years. We get zero funding from NZonAir and we don’t have no rich backers. If you can donate please do so here or directly into our account –12-3065-0133561-56
When Gareth Morgan started the party, their policy was to tax the owner’s actual equity. This meant that the tax would be low at the start, but would increase gradually as equity increased due to mortgage payments and accrued capital gain. This land tax is different since it is based on the whole of the land value right from the start, albeit that the land values do not represent the whole value of the property. This would mean that the taxpayer would be be paying tax on something which he did not fully own.
That Q&A interview was a train wreck, indeed—Wong was terrible… They, TOP, are taking Labour and Green voters from those parties… Watch both Labour and Green parties attack TOP soon.
Where’s the beef?
Last night TVNZ OneNew did a piece on the price of minced beef at $25 a kilogram.
TVNZ said the high price of beef mince in New Zealand was because of the high price of beef in the US.
it was never explained why this was.
We were left to guess why high prices for minced beef in the US caused high prices for minced beef in this country.
This morning NZ time, Donald Trump announced that he was removing the tariff on all minced beef imports to the US
CNBC:
Trump to allow import of 300,000 metric tons of ground beef without tariff
Dan Mangan
Fri, Aug 21 2026
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/08/21/trump-ground-beef-import-tariff.html
… President Donald Trump said the United States will allow up to 300,000 metric tons of product for ground beef to be imported over the next three months without being subject to out-of-quota tariffs.
Trump said importers had agreed the ground beef would be sold at 25% below market prices.
Trump’s post comes as his fellow Republicans fear that Americans’ concerns about the affordability of everyday products, such as food, could lead to losses for GOP congressional candidates in November….
TVNZ claimed that high prices for mince in this country are caused by high prices for mince in the US. If this is true then the inverse must be true as well.
25% lower prices for minced beef in the US must be 25% lower in this country as well.
Donald Trump said that US beef importers had “agreed” to lower prices for min\ced beef by 25%
If Trump can do it, Luxon can do it.
Christopher Luxon needs to be challenged on getting our beef sellers to agree to lower prices for minced beef by 25%.
If Trump can do it, so can he.
If the Left want to win in our November elections, then we need to make sure that New Zealanders’ concerns about the affordability of everyday products, such as food, will lead to losses for national Party candidates.
Let’s ask ourselves an honest question.
Would we rather have Wong or Peters deciding who will lead the next government?
It’s that simple.
Remember Colin Craig another delusional rich man who tried for more power with a political party. We missed a bullet then and I hope voters see through this party for being a fraud
Trevor, there are delusional rich people putting money into National for more power. That’s why it’s a train wreck of a party that serves no one but the donor. Luxon won’t even appear on Q&A
The fact that Opportunity – the new kid in town – is being tested and talked about as an alternative to the status quo is significant. Plainly, a lot of voters are shopping around for a change, and painfully few other options are available to them. Labour’s refusal to offer and defend a significant array of alternative policies has left a vacuum that Opportunity is filling. Apparently, it is taking a sizeable number of centre-left voters from Labour in the process. No wonder Helen Clark is rallying to the rescue.
https://werewolf.co.nz/2026/08/gordon-campbell-on-opportunitys-turn-in-the-political-spotlight/
Who is the leader of TOP?
The TOP party public facing front person hired from a pool of Seek job applicants by The Opportunity Party Board, is Qiulae Wong.
It can reasonably be argued that the real leader of TOP is millionaire Alan Wilderland, real name James Bertenshaw.
Wilderland/Bertenshaw is chair of the Opportunity Party board and strategy team that hired Wong.
Wilderland/Bertenshaw financially controls TOP, spending over $220,000 on the Party, paying the party’s weekly pay roll of $5,000 a week.
I don’t care how the Left choose to win, all I do know is they HAVE to WIN if NZ is to SURVIVE! If that means like-minded people work together, then that’s what we all must do. Another term of these totally incompetent, greedy, arrogant, cruel despots will leave more wreckage in its wake. The ‘haves’ will be even better off, the ‘needy’ much poorer – if that’s possible [?] while our land, waterways and scenic beauty suffer even more damage. Already we have to factor in ‘climate issues’ that most of us can’t even begin to comprehend, plus the seemingly never-ending behaviour from the Trump – Putin lunaticsl The truly “stupid” in NZ need to wake up NOW, actually understand what is happening, and the likely catastrophic outcomes. Whoever goes in 7/11, it will be a hard row to hoe but with more fairness and discipline it surely can’t be any worse than the last three years? We must keep asking the wealthy out there – when is enough ENOUGH? Greed is indeed an ugly trait! Way too much of it in our small lovely NZ! I seem to recall we once knew how to SHARE. Sadly, that’s long gone!
The only people who think this was a bad interview for Wong are the people who desperately need that to be so (NatACT First), or want it to be so (Labour/ Greens partisans). Wong could have answered every question so succinctly and convincingly that Tame was left with no further questions after 5 minutes, and those people still would have said it was a “train wreck”.
I just finished watching the interview and writing up my thoughts on the fediverse;
https://mastodon.nzoss.nz/@strypey/117125186388576755
As I said there, the woman has nerves of steel. If this was a “train wreck”, I’d love to see what a smooth, on-schedule train ride of an interview with Tame looks like.
“TOP skepticism is good but show me how else the Left wins?”
Martyn Bradbury
The Left loses by giving votes to TOP that should rightly stay with the Left.
Even if TOP don’t make the 5% threshold they have taken so many votes from the Left that a return of the most vicious right wing government in a generation is guaranteed.
If TOP pass the 5% threshold the same thing, the evidence is growing that TOP will support the return of a National led government.
Clearly we are fucked either way.
The Left can win by adopting two strategies.
1/ Grilling TOP to expose their true intentions
2/ Forming a left united front with between Labour, the Greens and TPM to create an overhang, that better reflects the will of the voters as expressed in RNZ Reid Research poll. Which is also likely to be reflected in post election exit polls.
@Pat O’Dea, the Left loses by giving votes to *Labour* that should rightly stay with the left. Or to TPM when they’ll almost certainly have too many electorate MPs for that to be useful.
In a completely illogical alternative universe where Opportunity decided to keep the NatACTs in power, the left still wins. We get rid of Hipkins (and unleash Edmonds), and the Labour left has an opportunity to take the reigns back from the neoliberal rump that Hipkins represents. Plus CLuxon (or whoever replaces him) has to try to wrangle a 4-headed monster of a government, with totally incompatible policy directions on multiple fronts. The most likely result would be an early election, where TOP would be gone by lunchtime.
But this hypothetical has about a snowballs’ chance in hell of happening, because it doesn’t serve TOP’s own interests, in any way.
How?
Is Nick Rockell and Clark and Hipkins saying wake up a blue green party aint part of a left government?
That means either Labour or National work with NZFirst. For Labour to do that they gonna have to make Winston King For A Day at least. PM is the first job on Winstons bucket list. Listed on the day of his Christening. Give Winston his wish and Labour can dictate almost all economic policy of the next govt.
TOP was not even remotely necessary for a centre-‘left’ government, before TOP’s comeback. Prior to their taking votes of the most braindead from Labour, Labour, the Greens could have formed a neoliberal nominally left of centre government with support from the Maori Party being the only left-wing pressure involved.
Hell, the Greens are running an electorate candidate who thinks it’s a joke to dissemble about whether he was one of the monsters who shot five civilians including a little three year old girl in the Operation Burnham massacre!
Now, with TOP having rebounded (thanks to money from dodgy foreigners), Labour will have excuses to run/govern even further right than they would otherwise.
We are under no obligation to cheer on a organisation that has, objectively, made things worse.
TOP have stolen all the oxygen out of the room.
Instead of discussing the issues this election should be about, cost of living, unemployment, the failing public health system, New Zealand’s support for war and genocide, the disintegration of the climate, instead of discussing any of these issues, the media, including social media, are filling the airwaves with discussion about TOP. Will they, Won’t they. Everyone is dancing to TOP’s peek-a-boo game. In effect these right-wing arseholes have wrecked the election.
A couple of times during that interview I heard echoes of BVV-level callousness toward workers. Most evident during the discussion of the 2000 public servants OP plan to lay off. Box-tickers she called them, who probably don’t even like their jobs (Hmmm they might like being able to put food on the table but).
In an early media appearance (with Garner …?) QW when asked to define a battler responded, ‘someone like me, a professional with kids’. Talk about bourgeois bullshit.
Mohammed Khan:
> Prior to their taking votes of the most braindead from Labour, Labour, the Greens could have formed a neoliberal nominally left of centre government
The doublethink of saying that a government could be both “neoliberal” and centre-left tells us everything we need to know about the depth of this analysis.
Also I would suggest taking their anti-TOP muckraking with a pretty hefty grain of salt, and thinking critically about who is engaged in it, and what might be motivating it.