Summarised by Centrist
The Opportunity Party is close enough to the 5% threshold that it could determine whether Christopher Luxon or Chris Hipkins becomes prime minister after the election, political commentator Bryce Edwards says.
“Our leverage point is the fact that we can work with both sides, and to pick a side right now would really undermine that,” Opportunity leader Qiulae Wong insists.
Edwards says the uncertainty leaves voters unsure which government they would be helping to elect.
Opportunity’s policies appear more compatible with Labour and the Greens than with ACT or NZ First. Edwards notes their proposed 1.75% urban land-value tax is not a middle-ground compromise between Labour and National, but a substantial redistribution of wealth.
Commentator Vernon Small predicted a four-party arrangement involving National, ACT, and NZ First would go “not well”, given the parties’ competing policies and political cultures.
Labour, meanwhile, could potentially help Opportunity enter Parliament by reducing its campaign effort in Mt Albert, where Wong is standing. An Opportunity victory could give Hipkins the numbers to form a government.
That could also weaken National’s campaign warning about a Labour-Green-Te Pāti Māori coalition.
“At a minimum, Opportunity would have to say that a Labour-assisted victory would not be used to return the existing National-Act-NZ First Government,” Edwards writes.
However, Opportunity would effectively identify itself as part of the Labour bloc, weakening its appeal to centre-right voters and reducing its bargaining power with National.
The party’s ambiguity may therefore protect its leverage while making a Labour electorate deal almost impossible.
Edwards says as Opportunity approaches the threshold, voters should know whether an Opportunity vote is most likely to remove the present government or keep it in office.
“Leverage is not a democratic mandate,” he concludes.
Read more over at Democracy Briefing
Image: The Opportunity Party
