It doesn’t make sense for leftie influencers to bag Opportunity

Polling suggests a Labour-led government is unlikely without Opportunity

In recent months, some left-leaning political influencers have delivered sustained, negative commentary about the Opportunity Party. This is unusual for several reasons, not least the basic arithmetic that confronts the left bloc. Polling indicates that a Labour-led government would have little prospect of governing without Opportunity. If the left influencers who seem intent on burying Opportunity succeed, they could also bury any chance they have of governing.

While the commentary has adopted various talking points, much of it converges on one general idea: Opportunity is a trojan horse for the right. 

To back up this theory, some have looked at the politics of various Opportunity party members’ relatives and decided this is somehow proof. It’s a real stretch to assume because one person supports a particular party, every member of their family will too. 

It’s not just family under the microscope though. Opportunity’s critics have been scrutinising other connections with the right and theorising they have undue influence. But often, the balancing context is missing. For example, it is true that tech entrepreneur Brian Cartmell has donated to right-bloc parties and also gave $100,000 to Opportunity in February. But it is also true that in January, the party received a $50,000 donation from Philip Mills, a long-time benefactor of Labour and Greens.

Nonetheless, the trojan horse theory suggests that the existence of specific influential people in proximity to Opportunity is evidence enough that they might be a defining factor in the party’s overarching strategy. While this is not inconceivable, the suggestion sidesteps a fundamental principle of political strategy that is true regardless of who is connected to it: no political objective is immune from political consequences. The goal of a strategy is to increase a party’s potential while mitigating the most obvious risk – losing voters. Opportunity, like any other party, has expectations from its tribe. To some degree, Opportunity must deliver on its policy values and governing preferences.

NZ Election Study data covering the 2017, 2020 and 2023 elections shows that Opportunity supporters favour policy to address climate change and income inequality. I tabulated the 2023 results and noted that these policy attitudes were similar in the 2017 and 2020 data, even though supporters’ party of origin had shifted. Talbot Mills polling in June and July this year revealed Opportunity supporters strongly favoured a Labour-led government over a National-led one.

The trojan horse theory ignores the policy-attitude values and governing preferences of party supporters. It assumes that the party’s electability in 2029 doesn’t matter, and that Opportunity is a trojan horse purpose-built for 2026. The implication here is that a large number of people would be conspiring, seemingly accepting the elevated risk to their future careers. That’s not quite a fake moon landing-level conspiracy, but it’s heading in that direction.

Opportunity’s official coalition negotiating position is to talk to the party that has the most votes first, and Qiulae Wong has declared that there are “many things we could work with National on”. Neither of these positions can reasonably be viewed as a governing preference for one side.

Another peculiar characteristic of the trojan horse theory is how far influencers are from the leaders of political parties they favour. When asked about Opportunity on TVNZ’s Breakfast, Chlöe Swarbrick’s criticism was restrained and she seemed to leave the door open to working with the party, saying “evidence-based policy is really important. So I'll never begrudge anybody who comes to the table with that. But what is also important is knowing what your internal values or moral compass is when the facts change, knowing what political parties actually stand for”.

When asked by 1News if Labour would work with Opportunity over Te Pāti Māori, Labour’s campaign chair Kieran McAnulty replied: “I would, yeah, sure. But you know, at the end of the day, you deal with the cards that are dealt.”

None of this suggests that Opportunity couldn’t end up working with National, but Opportunity’s five bottom lines have considerably more friction with National than with Labour. Even if some advisors close to Opportunity’s leadership prefer National, they cannot remove those differences – and they would likely understand the risk of alienating supporters.

So, is Opportunity a trojan horse for the right? No one’s presented any evidence that makes sense in the broader political context.