Five reasons to think carefully before voting TOP

This is the second in a series examining the implications of voting for particular parties and offering talking points for conversations with friends considering supporting them.

Today, I’m looking at TOP.

Unlike Labour, which I profiled yesterday, TOP has little established voting tradition to draw on – but its recent rise in the polls has been meteoric, supported by media exposure that other minor parties could only dream of. A cynic might regard that media enthusiasm as ‘coordinated’ given that TOP has never even reached 3% in any previous election – but, whatever the reason, that coverage has turned a perennial outsider into a serious electoral prospect.

The attraction is understandable. Almost $20,000 a year in your bank account, a radically different approach to housing and a leader promising to break the political deadlock? That’s an appealing message to people frustrated with the traditional options.

But someone attracted to TOP two or three months ago should look carefully at what their vote will now deliver because what the Party was saying as recently as September – and what it is saying now - are very different propositions.

1. TOP is no longer campaigning on ‘free money’.

The prospect of a Citizen’s Income approaching $20,000 annually was always going to attract attention - particularly from people struggling to get ahead – so TOP’s original policy of a $19,400 ‘UBI’ every year was enticing.

However, that policy no longer appears among the policies that TOP insists a coalition partner must accept.

This follows massive backlash at the projected cost of the policy ($80 billion per year) and the huge damage it would have done to the economy – so TOP leader Quilae Wong has folded and accepted that it will be traded off in exchange for other concessions. The policy still appears on the TOP website, but it is dead in the water.

2. TOP has traded principle for power.

The ‘free money’ policy isn’t the only idea that TOP has given up on in pursuit of a seat at the table.

Like them or loathe them, TOP’s original economic proposals distinguished it from the competition – but compare those early ideas with their more recently announced ‘bottom lines’ and you’ll see that all of the innovation is gone. Some of these new bottom lines are laudable – stronger competition powers, lobbying and donation rules, a ten-year health plan, restrictions on bottom trawling - but none of them is groundbreaking. In fact, they sound more like the wish list of an activist organisation than a serious political party.

The message: TOP has been willing to trade its principles for power and voters who wanted substantial change should consider whether they would, instead, be financing a very expensive exercise in getting new untested people around the Cabinet table.

3. TOP will complicate coalition negotiations.

Every additional party to a coalition agreement makes negotiating that coalition more difficult and makes it less stable and more likely to collapse within its three years. That risk could have been justified, with TOP, when they were bringing something fresh to the table. But their remaining policies - climate commitments, political donations, public services and Treaty partnership – sound an awful lot like the Greens, with better haircuts.

For someone who wants a government of the centre-left, that creates an obvious problem. What does splitting your vote to support TOP actually achieve that you weren’t already getting from one of the other parties of the left?

If your priorities are stronger public services, environmental protection and the other values TOP emphasises, Labour and the Greens already compete for that support. TOP just adds another leadership team and another set of negotiations for no additional policy value. So why wouldn’t you just cast your vote with parties that already occupy that space?

4. Current trends show that your TOP vote may be wasted.

TOP’s early momentum has weakened. Successive 1News Verian polls put them at 8%, then 7%, then 6.3%. Those figures describe a retreat towards the threshold and oblivion. (parties that poll under 5% get no seats).

Remember, no genuinely new party without sitting or former MPs among its ranks has made it into Parliament in the MMP era. Not one – even though others have had similar trajectories in polling prior to the election.

History doesn’t determine this election, of course - but neither should voters dismiss it. Public interest, favourable coverage and encouraging polls have failed to translate into parliamentary representation for plenty of previous hopeful.

So if you want a particular government, consider the consequences of your vote contributing no seats towards it. That’s a huge gamble with your vote for a party which – as we’ve already established – is willing to negotiate away the policies that once made it distinctive.

5. TOP’s rhetoric doesn’t match its actions.

TOP’s promises initially sounded lofty and principled – but Wongs actions haven’t matched them as the campaign has progressed. Note, for example, the admission that TOP had accepted substantial donations while campaigning to restrict them. Or Wongs cattiness in recent televised debates. Or the recent revelations of massive infighting within the TOP board and descriptions of a 'toxic culture' within the Party by former insiders. When a leader claims that they will ‘do things differently’ you’re held to a higher standard - a standard that Wong and TOP have not met.

These points should matter to people who have seriously considered voting TOP. Their frustration with established parties is understandable, and their desire for something better deserves respect – but before casting that vote for TOP, look again at the proposition. The ‘free money’ promise is gone, the appealing distinctive programme has been scrapped, the political behaviour has become familiar and parliamentary entry remains a 50/50 call.

To me, that sounds like an awfully big gamble.