October 21st, 2014 12:43

Organisational Structure and Internal Party Democracy

[deactivated account] Public Seen by 847

We now have the opportunity to build a democratic organisational culture from the bottom up.

We need to engage with the wider membership to determine how we can structure ourselves to facilitate good communication, opportunities to identify the future leaders and the methods that we can achieve outcomes from a simple decision making process.

We are only restricted by the current Constitution until we can bring forward a number of motions and organise a Special General Meeting. At this Special General Meeting we can make a start on the changes needed and follow the rest up in the AGM in 2015.

Right now lets start the discussion. How should we structure the Party? From grassroots up to the Executive Board.

If you are meeting in local meetups or with other Internet Party People please provide summaries here in Loomio of what the thoughts are from you area of the country. You can attach documents or provide links elsewhere to support the summary
you write.

Lets keep this discussion based on organisational structure (lets keep policy talk in other threads) and we will examine how each suggestion achieves or does not achieve good internal party democracy.


[deactivated account] started a proposal October 21st, 2014 12:46

Should we prepare to hold a Special General Meeting? Closed 6:14pm - Wednesday 26 Nov 2014

by [deactivated account] April 25th, 2017 09:29

Closed. Now time to start expanding the conversation and really think about how we should organise ourselves offline and online.

I encourage people to take part in the wider discussion rather than focus on us making decisions straight away on issues.

This question is asked only to avoid other proposals distracting us from the wider discussion.

Agree - 8
Abstain - 8
Disagree - 8
Block - 8
-604 people have voted (-5100%)

[deactivated account] October 21st, 2014 12:50

The current Internet Party Constitution is attached. You can also find this on the internet.org.nz website.


[deactivated account] October 21st, 2014 13:11

I thought I might summarise the structure as I interpret it from the Internet Party's Constitution.

Currently the Executive Board is made up of appointed positions only. All members of the Internet Party Assets Incorporated were appointed, with the Party President being selected from this group of people. The board then selected a Party Leader by ranking its choice as the number one candidate for the 2014 elections. By virtual of being ranked first the leader also became an Executive Board member.

Based on the Constitution when we do hold our AGM the Executive Board next year will then be made up of the following:
- Party President (to be elected)
- Party Visionary (Kim or an alternative person appointed)
- Party Secretary (appointed)
- Party Leader (appointed)
- Additional Member 1 (to be elected)
- Additional Member 2 (to be elected)
- Additional Member 3 (to be elected)
- Additional Member 4 (to be elected)
- Additional Member 5 (to be elected)

No other structure is supported or decision making process outside what is decided by the Executive Board and then delegated.

While it provides members the opportunity to be counted, it does not outline how this is done. I believe we must recognise that this Constitution serves us only for 2014 and it will need to be amended with additional clauses introduced.


[deactivated account] October 21st, 2014 13:49

What about Grassroots? The Executive Board supported us forming meetup groups but this was an informal way to bring local people to meet each other.

Do we want to create branches or try to focus on using the internet better to engage and link us all ?

My personal thoughts is that small localised branches are old school, an old approach to provide a party's membership to participate in the party when communities were isolated from one another. We now have the tool of the Internet to speak and connect to everyone.

I still feel local events, local issues need to be attended to by people who know the area. I suggest we still look into an organisational level between the Executive and the individual members to act as Coordinating Committees. These would act like branch committees of other parties in some of their function but look after a much broader area.

For example we could split the South Island into three areas. Lower South Area to look after Southland and Otago; a Canterbury Area; and a Upper South Area to look after West Coast, Tasman, Nelson, Marlborough (I attach one idea how we could divide NZ into 13 areas).

As the sole purpose of these groups is to ensure we have meetups, attend local meetings, and organise opportunities to be seen we don't need too many. Unlike other parties our decision making would be more liquid and online.


Ross Burrows October 21st, 2014 18:00

Still wanting to shuffle the deck chairs? I propose that we hold a meeting to send out a search party for our former leaders, and decide wether the party still exists or not . . .

Matthew Chipping

Matthew Chipping
October 21st, 2014 19:15

Matthew Chipping

Matthew Chipping October 21st, 2014 19:16

I'm with Ross on this one. We really need to know whether the party still exists or not.


October 21st, 2014 20:56

I'd like to hear from the IP executive first.

Fred Look

Fred Look October 21st, 2014 22:23

Yes good to revisit the constitution. It looks like the exec committe can either dissolve IP or hold an AGM next year. My guess is that they are considering dissolving as they must now. This is a difficult decision and they will take some time. There is in the constitution no requirement to communicate with us and what can they say at this point? We wait.


Ross Burrows October 21st, 2014 22:47

You're guessing aren't you? that's my point. What makes you think anybody's meeting and deciding anything?

Since the election, I've become a professional skeptic.

In the absence of any tangible evidence that executives still exist, the former leadership is AWOL, and must be guilty of dereliction of duty to report to the membetship.

A simple "we're working on it" would suffice. Hasn't happened.

I say let's not wait . . .


[deactivated account] October 21st, 2014 22:50

@rossburrows @fredlook @adamchennells The Executive is a bit thin in numbers. Who do we want to hear from?

In Auckland a few of us have had a post election meetup and got Laila along.

We discussed where we go from here. If we wanted a political party to champion the issues that bring us all together or if we seek to establish ourselves in some other form.

From general members we got a sense that we want to build a structure and fulfil the promise of establishing a political party that can promote the ideals and potential of the Internet in politics and our lives. We agreed to meet again and bring ideas to the table on how to structure ourselves. Because we lack structure and without all the people that worked on the campaign these resources and lines of communication have gone. Until we establish ourselves to move forward in some form nothing will progress.

The reality is on election night Kim did say he will step back from the limelight and maybe this means his position on the Executive so we do need to know what this means. Also, our President has more or less moved on to a new start-up. We may need to appoint someone to act until an AGM is held.

The Executive Committee can propose to dissolve the party but it still needs the members to agree. In either case an AGM or special General Meeting will have to occur.

The party was founded on the principles of the internet while the framework is not in place to promote its membership base in having the power to decide together, thats what we need to do. The next step we need is to use loomio and the internet to make it happen... we need to use the internet to create the chatter to build momentum and get being deciding the future.

Fred Look

Fred Look October 21st, 2014 23:01

Yes I am guessing! as I read the constitution a decision to dissolve is for the exec alone and I think that they must make an informed decision and we abide by it. Nothing in that would prevent us from creating another vehicle or taking over the lists. However I dont guess that they will dissolve so I wait noisily. When I emailed members@ I was told we are working on it so someone is there


Ross Burrows October 22nd, 2014 09:48

One of the key underlying issue in the above unresolved dilemna is the list of members.

The best way to tackle any uncertainty would be to contact our entire membership and ask some key questions.

How many wish to continue their membership?
Existing structure, new structure?
Appointed leaders, elected leader?

etc. etc.


Peter Baxter
October 22nd, 2014 19:25

I agree with Ross, we need a definitive answer as to whether the Executive still exists, and a realistic short-term timetable for some action, even if it's only polling the folk on the original list.


Vikram October 22nd, 2014 20:05

I am posting this as a member of the Executive Committee. Yes, the party and the Committee still exists. There have been discussions with members and within the Committee about the best way to move the party forward, one that meets the interests of the membership and is also pragmatic. No decisions have yet been made. In any case, major decisions will involve the membership. Laila is the party's leader and two staff are still on board tidying up things- the Party Secretary and Campaign Director.

Fred Look

Fred Look October 22nd, 2014 20:48

Thank you vikram

Fred Look

Fred Look October 22nd, 2014 21:12

One of the major and ongoing risks to any political party is the tendency to form cliques. People tend to discuss with people they know. It is easy for a party leadership to become a closed group as happened to the greens. I am not suggesting any ill will or that that is happening here. What I am saying and from considerable experence is that unless this natural tendency is recognised and actively mitigated it will happen here to the detrement of our common goal. The most important diversity that must be actively pursued is Social diversity.


ben cooney
October 23rd, 2014 20:37

We need to build and consolidate. We need to start looking outwards . If we wish to actualise and generate grassroots support en masse we must water and nourish our own roots.


Ross Burrows October 23rd, 2014 21:49

Thank you for that Vikram. I will stop stirring now that we have some official words to go on. Bit of mystery why it took a month to get it.

I te


Ross Burrows October 23rd, 2014 21:55

Oops. I tend to agree with Fred, the management of the Internet Party has been quite top down with appointees making decisions then announcing them.

This didn't help our election chances.

Hope the new management style canvasses the memberdhip before


Ross Burrows October 23rd, 2014 22:01

Sorry, writing this on a cellphone. Before making important decisions. The combined intelligence and best interests of members would be better than a small exclusive committee.

A camel is a horse designed by a commitee.

A commitee is like a dark passageway where good ideas are tied up and slowly strangled . . .


Amy Olivia Renee Koni
October 24th, 2014 10:18

The trick is to accept nothing


seann paurini October 25th, 2014 01:38

Thank Vikram. That's good news. How can we get committee or admin folk to respond to queries? Since I joined a few months back I've never had responses to queries I've made. Thanks


[deactivated account] October 25th, 2014 09:33

Thank you @vikramkumar
'If' this is a truly democratic party, then we need to continue the discussions online (involving as many members as possible, including the self-elected committee). It is no good that we criticise New Zealand's major political decisions made behind closed doors and then have an (more or less) unknown committee making decisions inside the party. Is the party for the people or not?


seann paurini October 25th, 2014 22:51

@vikram I hope that the IP does break away from the perception of a few puppet masters. I'm fully for a smart revolution away from status quo NZ. But I do think the membership needs to be engaged properly - particularly with members who want to contribute in a real/practical way. I want to lobby on behalf of the IP's policies here in Wellington. If there is a staunch group of us it could be very effective. Where are the Wellington people? We need to keep on at them (politicians), frequently and with plenty of public attention.

Colin England

Colin England October 26th, 2014 11:04

@seannpaurini @vikram

We need to learn the lessons that Enspiral have already learnt about engagement and participation and how it reduces workload on everyone while also bringing about better decisions. It's not something that can be done overnight but requires effort from all of us and better processes of information sharing.

Marc Whinery

Marc Whinery October 26th, 2014 19:03

The problem the Internet Party had is a large number of "odd" people came out. There were some people who applied for candidacy that seemed like they couldn't hold a thought in their head long enough to form a sentence about it. They'd forget the topic before they got to the end of the sentence, or so it seemed.

Empowering everyone would empower a number of people who were sufficiently odd to drive away voters. That is my guess as to what their fear was.

I remember volunteering when the party was started, then told that they didn't need volunteers. I volunteered multiple times, in multiple ways, and door knocker was the only "job" that was offered to me. And that was after all the candidates were selected.

I was ineligible for candidacy at the time, as I wasn't a citizen, so there was nothing they were interested in doing with volunteers.

They didn't know what to do about it. I heard they had thousands of volunteers, and use less than 1/10th of them to do anything, and then it went to manual labour at events.

The top powers didn't want to share anything. Everything was so centralized and behind closed doors. It's as if they treated every IP member as a GCSB spy, or something.


Loveday Kingsford
October 26th, 2014 22:15

A Special General Meeting would be a clear signal that at least IMP exists and may even enjoy extended and successful life prospects.


[deactivated account] October 26th, 2014 22:45

It would really be appreciated if Laila Harre and the other committee members would join this online forum. Without direct communication and discussion there is only a skeleton, not a real party. We are many who are serious about involving ourselves in the building of this party. PLEASE involve us... or this whole Internet Party will turn into just another 'wannabe'.

Colin England

Colin England October 27th, 2014 20:12


Empowering everyone would empower a number of people who were sufficiently odd to drive away voters.

Yeah, saw that at the Kelston meeting when someone stood up to ask about Agenda 21. Thing is, that's not an excuse to dis-empower people as doing so, IMO, actually increases their oddness. What we need to do there is communicate and educate them.

They didn’t know what to do about it. I heard they had thousands of volunteers, and use less than 1/10th of them to do anything, and then it went to manual labour at events.

Poor organisation. That happens when you rush as the IP was rushed. Now we should be getting that organisation into place.

The top powers didn’t want to share anything.

I don't think that's true. The marijuana policy obviously took from what was discussed on here. I think it's down to that poor organisation.

It’s as if they treated every IP member as a GCSB spy, or something.

Considering the experience of the Greens where they have been spied upon by the SIS and police that, unfortunately, isn't an irrational fear.

Fred Look

Fred Look October 30th, 2014 00:57

OK without addressing whether the IP is the vehicle it would be interesting to consider if there is any actual basis of commonality on which we could build. Up to now we have been considering various specific policies and finding much to argue about. If we are going forward there must be some level on which we agree. We need to pare it back to that which we can agree on and build forward.
So is there a definition of egalitarianism that we can all firstly agree on and secondly support.


[deactivated account] October 30th, 2014 03:23

@fredlook "So is there a definition of egalitarianism that we can all firstly agree on and secondly support."

How about science?

Fred Look

Fred Look October 30th, 2014 05:47

egalitarianism: is the assumption that all people are of equal worth.
science: I havent a clue.


Loveday Kingsford October 30th, 2014 21:16

A definition of egalitarianism:
"All animals are equal but some are more equal than others." George Orwell.
We are in an age where rationality and meaning are dissolving. Does lack of communication from from IMP leaders indicate even further lack of rationality and meaning?
We may never know, so it might be an idea to call a general meeting anyway or several meetings at central city locales to reconstitute the idea of a serious political group which accepts and understands the ongoing lack of rationality and meaning particularly in relationship to historic terms such as left wing, right wing, egalitarianism,feudalism, freedom of thought,slavery, etc., and which embraces an understanding that survival of the species may depend on some hitherto unconsidered line of thought or action.

The internet is useful but I suspect the synergy is ultimately faux. We are receiving and transmitting devices ourselves.
In the meantime another political party has started up.


Marc Whinery

Marc Whinery October 30th, 2014 21:30

When Kim is deported, the party will lose its funding. The party was formed by members who only paid a trivial amount to join, so it'll likely not be member funded.

Unless someone else steps in, the party will likely go unfunded, and take a place next to ALCP.

Colin England

Colin England October 31st, 2014 03:29

A party shouldn't need large donations from single individuals. Very little from each of us regularly can result in large cash flows.

Dennis Dorney

Dennis Dorney October 31st, 2014 06:19

@draco, I seem to remember this issue being raised soon after the election. The membership fee for most parties is about $20 pa. Since the very existence of the Internet Party seems to be on a knife edge judging by the above comments, it is difficult to see how we can expect each member to want to pay more. Dont forget that to be a registered party we need more than 500 members, so having a few members prepared to pay regular donations wont get us registered as a Party.
It looks as though we would have to accept a $20 pa membership and then push hard for donations.
On the topic of local branches, I would prefer that there were local branches along electoral lines. Their meetings dont have to be formal; they could serve a social function too (It is possible that the people that Marc Whinery finds so odd are quite normal face to face). It seems to me that if branches do not conform to electoral boundaries it will lead to administrative difficulties during an election campaign.

Dennis Dorney

Dennis Dorney October 31st, 2014 18:21

Thinking a bit more about the issue of Internet's future, I dont see how the numbers can stack up. I assume that the 635 mentioned in any vote we take is our actual membership. Thats about 10 members per electorate. If membership is $20 pa for three years we would have $600 maximum in each electorate to fund a campaign. That wont get us anywhere.
It seems that the Party needs to combine with another Party yet again. The Mana Party might be willing again, though I doubt it. I dont think they will have any money to contribute and they dont have a structure in conventional electorates, so there isnt much gain.
There are two alternatives that do have local branches, candidates willing to stand in elections and policies that are probably acceptable to most Internet members. One is the Democrats for Social Credit, which did contest the last election so they have at least 500 members. This doubles the amount that can be spent in an electorate by the combined resources of both parties.
If you look at their policies on the internet most would be acceptable to Internet Party members. Three policies that would probably be non-negotiable are:-
1) The Reserve Bank is to be the sole creator of NZ money supply (not the Private banks)
2) A Financial Transactions tax.
3) A guaranteed minimum income.
What can the IP offer? 1.2% of the vote. (The Democrats polled a low 0.07%). IP has a better communication system (Loomio, though it needs improvement) and younger, more computer savvy membership.
Laila Harre would know of the Democrats from the days of the long defunct Alliance parties and might be willing to negotiate.
The other option is the Alliance Party itself but they failed to contest the last election, so I suspect their membership is less than 500.
Do I have an interest here? Yes, I support the financial policies of the Democrats.At the election I party-voted Internet/Mana but voted electorally for the Democrats as the best tactical use of my vote.

Marc Whinery

Marc Whinery October 31st, 2014 19:27

@dennisdorney " Their meetings dont have to be formal; they could serve a social function too (It is possible that the people that Marc Whinery finds so odd are quite normal face to face). "

I was unable to make the local candidate's screening (the initial one, the later ones I did make it to). I heard from someone there that some of the candidate volunteers talked about their plight as a homeless unemployed person in Auckland. And that they were as off-putting to voters in person as I'd have guessed, if not more. It wasn't "just me" that had that impression about some of the "volunteers". At least one, while a prospective candidate for the Internet Party, started a competing party. Though I don't think he ever got the required number of members.

More fundamental is the issue of what the party is here for. Is it here to serve the desires of the members, or to appeal to a wider audience? UBI is not a mainstream issue. People seeing that will just see "freeloaders" and "higher taxes" and it will decrease the chances of it happening.

But roll it into a plan for universal employment that includes education and UBI, and decreases taxes (As taxes go down for a person when more people are paying in), and it could be more acceptable to voters.

But my experience with the IP is that the one-issue people are so focused on their one issue that they'd rather get no votes on the "pure" issue that dilute it with other issues that make it politically palatable, and no longer the "core" issue.

Drugs, UBI, and banking were the three big issues on Loomio (plenty of others that were discussed, but those were the three that seemed to get the most discussion in many palces). But Drugs and banking are suicide, as is UBI, but to a lesser degree.

We need core issues that make sense. The education platform wasn't bad, but it wasn't sold. Great, so we have kids on welfare/UBI until 25, and no money for adults re-training? That'll go nowhere. But universal employment would get better traction, and part of that is getting Kiwis trained for jobs. So we need education to get unemployment down. There are other/better ways to make the points.

But I don't think the party will recover from the loss. The membership wasn't motivated enough, and the voting base too small. The party was designed to run once, the self-destruct (Internet Mana), and that was as far as anyone thought ahead.

Colin England

Colin England October 31st, 2014 20:38


$20 per year per member isn't enough to run a party on and any party claiming that it is is planning on being beholden to the corporates. We have to talk dollars per week per member.

for a 500 member party:

$1 per week = $500 or $26,000 per year
$2 per week = $1000 or $52,000 per year
$5 per week = $2500 or $130,000 per year

For a small party it's only at the $5 per week each that it becomes viable. It's still reliant upon volunteers but now it can support some advertising and paying for research. Basically it becomes active enough to attract more people.

For a party with 30,000 members those figures start looking impressive.

$1 per week = $30,000 or $1.5m per year
$2 per week = $60,000 or $3m per year
$5 per week = $150k or $7.8m per year

We should be in a good position at the moment but we need to get over the idea that we can make change for nothing because we can't. Each and everyone of us needs to front up with the cash.

Jp Willam Perry

Jp Willam Perry
November 1st, 2014 05:35

yes let do it

Dennis Dorney

Dennis Dorney November 1st, 2014 06:04

@draco. I have a high regard for the contributions you make on Loomio, but I think your expectations on this issue are unrealistic. If the membership figure of 635 is true, it is not a very large numbers and doesn't augur well for a target of 30,000 members. Existing members paid $1.29 each. Now it is being suggested that they pay $5 per week. The loss of members will be horrific and we need members or you have no support in the electorates.
If I were asked to pay $5 per week from now to the end of the membership year I would do it, but I have been involved in politics for a long time and I simply dont believe that this approach is viable.
To get enough members to form a registered party the basic membership fee must be fairly low. Perhaps members can be persuaded to pay $5.00 per week if the first 4 payments are taken as a membership fee, then you get your numbers.
Then you need a membership secretary, a treasurer and two signatories etc....... and the fun begins.
Incidentally, the answer to the question "Why are we continuing against the odds?", my response is that the IP Loomio process offers the best potential for a total change in our democratic system. Something that the last election shows is needed urgently.

Colin England

Colin England November 2nd, 2014 03:07

If the membership figure of 635 is true, it is not a very large numbers and doesn’t augur well for a target of 30,000 members.

All parties started somewhere and often at around the same level. The point I was trying to make is that for a small party it's very difficult if not impossible to grow the party if the members don't front up with viable amounts of cash.

The Alliance has about the same number of members and they pretty much rely solely upon the three yearly $25 membership fee. They're not doing too well and they don't have the funding to become active enough to attract new members.

The question we have to answer is: How do we grow? And we can't unless we put some effort into it and that, in today's society, requires money. I'd prefer that it didn't but we really do need to get stuff printed and put adverts for more members in newspapers.


[deactivated account] November 2nd, 2014 05:45

@colinengland With payment per week, have you thought about what happens when the party is doing something part of the membership doesn't like? Like the alliance with Mana. You might find party funding becoming volatile as people use their weekly funding for the party to cast a financial vote by withdrawing that support when they don't agree with the a policy.

That being said, I would be comfortable with a dollar a week. It isn't much but that is just a better reason to grow the community.

Dennis Dorney

Dennis Dorney November 2nd, 2014 05:48

If I am asked to put in $20 per month towards a membership drive until the AGM at which point the issue is revisited, I will.
So now we need a structure. This will depend on access to the membership list. Then some volunteers, mostly unknown to each other, two of which will handle money - a risk that will have to be taken, if this path is followed
We had more support in the Election than two parties that are in parliament but we clearly lack a structure with office bearers in place. We also polled more than the Democrats (0.07%) or Alliance (did not contest) both of which have an organisational structure.. Talking to these two Parties seems to be an obvious move to make, or we are just reinventing the wheel.

Colin England

Colin England November 2nd, 2014 20:52


With payment per week, have you thought about what happens when the party is doing something part of the membership doesn’t like?

That would be why we discuss it on here before hand so that we can come to a consensus on the amount and timing.


We need structure and processes anyway, (Chaos never really achieves anything), but that doesn't mean that it has to be hierarchical. Just a question of what those structures and processes are.

We need a way to keep everyone in the information loop and a way to encourage people to participate in the discussions. With a weekly income we also need to let the party know what it is so that they can help decide, through Loomio, how and where to spend it.

We need electorate offices to organise local activities out of for prospective members to contact and that, at this stage in the game, is likely to be some volunteers house.

Colin Davies

Colin Davies November 3rd, 2014 19:21

We need leadership, if anything is to happen.

Colin England

Colin England November 3rd, 2014 20:21

We need to become a cooperative. Leadership in the beginning may be needed but we really need to be driven from the grassroots.


Win Kiddle
November 4th, 2014 20:28

yes. Just so members can see whether the party has genuine support


Ross Burrows November 4th, 2014 21:09

Colin Davies
We need leadership, if anything is to happen.

I hope this isn't taken too personally, but by my reckoning the current leadership of the Internet Party still consists of original appointees.

In the spirit of the nature of true democracy,would they be prepared to lead by example and seek a mandate from a majority of current members to continue in their current roles?

Loomio seems to a forum for a small number of individuals who are motivated to debate the issues of the day.

I don't want to ascribe blame to any particular individual involved in election strategy, as I believe all their motives were sincere and well intentioned, and they worked hard to acheive success.

KDC has already and to his great credit, taken steps to admit and apologise for his 'brand' not helping the credibility of the party along the way.

The party would not exist but for his generosity, so I still take my hat off to him for trying his best to change the status quo.

However, in the light of the disappointing result, perhaps the best way to start over is to ensure that whoever is selected to lead the party into the next phase at very least has a clear majority mandate from all members.

By allowing the 'power' of true democratic decisions, maybe we could succeed where before we failed...


Ross Burrows
November 4th, 2014 21:38

It would be good to get together a meeting of interested parties to help move things forward from here, regardless of the eventual outcome.

Fred Look

Fred Look November 4th, 2014 22:25

we are a meeting of interested parties! can we somehow widen the participation here?


Ross Scholes
November 5th, 2014 20:06

I think democracy within the existing structures is a lost cause. Rather than trying to break into the castle to take control, better to rebuild outside it -- start again with new vision: http://peasants.org.nz


Ross Burrows November 5th, 2014 22:54

Fred. How about a meeting of interested individuals from the Internet Party over drinks in a quiet environment where we can hold conversations and plot world domination?

Just kidding, but in the absence of any activity from the top table, we could perhaps form a ginger group with an elected spokeperson so that like minded individuals can bond and formulate strategy and policy and an action plan to try to make a positive difference in the future.

i am really disillusioned with conventional politics so wether by political party or other means, I would like to talk to people who wish to make a difference in society by combining their strengths to push for positive change.

I really enjoy the debates on loomio, and learn heaps along the way, but it's a blunt instrument when compared to meeting people and talking things through live.

If there was sufficient demand, i'd offer to be a temporary coordinator for an experimental get together over drinks to talk.

Up to you guys . . . (B-)

The sleepers must awaken . . .

Fred Look

Fred Look November 6th, 2014 01:30

@rossburrows I am tempted by your offer.
I do feel that parties based on actual physical meetings are dinosaurs. however there is a good case for some of us to meet. Without prodding the dragon it is conceviable that this forum could vaporise and contacts and content lost. I live in the country and rarely travel, however it just happens that I will be in Auckland this weekend. ? ??

Fred Look

Fred Look November 7th, 2014 22:08

ah im goint to the aunty tpp rally. wish I had a IP purple banner. might see some IP people. I am the grubby country bumpkin (grey hair, bare feet, crazed expression etc) oh wait there is quite a few of us like that.

Fred Look

Fred Look November 8th, 2014 03:57

well I been to the tppa protest and I spoke with laila. she does exist! I did put to her that communicating with the members was becoming an urgency. she says that she and all the candidates are meeting tomorrow and that she will communicate asap after that. we talked somewhat about possible future for the party. but lets see what they come up with after tomorrow.


[deactivated account] November 8th, 2014 05:49

@fredlook Well done. Yesterday she was in the news but was listed as a political commentator which was slightly worrying. As for looks, if we ever march on Parliament they'll think they are being attacked by Peter Jackson.

Colin Davies

Colin Davies November 9th, 2014 10:00

Fred, waiting for an update.

Fred Look

Fred Look November 11th, 2014 00:55

@colindavies Yes so am I. She did say that she does not have the capacity to email members from her computer. But I am still dissapointed! I have to say that I can see how a person observing the tppa protest could see it more as a process of strengenthing a social group and defining a hirearchy in that group than much else. a group of highly privileged bullies parading their superiority. But maby im an old bitter cynic.


Ross Burrows November 11th, 2014 05:30

nup, you're a realist, and an honest man.

She could quickly and easily rattle something off through the I.P.website or membership mail structure. - so thats not a valid excuse, it's a copout.

The dereliction of duty is obvious to all but the current non-leader . . .


Debbie Stanley
November 15th, 2014 16:49

I think we need a meeting if only to get the leadership talking to us but mostly I want to see them on here. Loomio gives the IP an opportunity to become something new, a genuinely representative party, but only if they develop it's potential.


Debbie Stanley November 15th, 2014 17:11

Maybe slightly off topic but just on the off chance that someone from the party leadership does come online.
When I tell people about the IP the thing that most sparks their interest is this. Loomio. The idea that, if they become members they will be able to have a real say in the policies and progression of the party because many people are feeling very ignored by the parties they are in and disillusioned with them. That they're reduced to picking the best of a bad lot.

But then they ask me "... and the leaders join in? They discuss things with you? Pay attention? listen to what their members want? What you say and how you vote makes a difference to the party's actual policy?"
What do I say then? Because I'm not a liar and I don't actually know any more if we're talking to anyone other than ourselves. This medium has so much potential. It could really change political party structure and politics as a whole permanently. But only if it's being used. That I'm voting for a meeting not because I think we really need one but because I think we really need to talk to our leadership to find out if they're even still there in more than just name... that does not speak well of them.


[deactivated account] November 15th, 2014 20:03

It looks like the leaders are gearing up for an open discussion of a kind. I just wish they would be aware of all the people who have kept on posting here on Loomio. This was after all the medium we were given for communication.


seann paurini November 17th, 2014 01:58

If it can regroup and start behaving radically-democratically/responsibly innovative I want to stand in a seat for the party. PS. Do you think Kim.com would finance a TV station in competition with TV1 and TV3?


Ross Burrows November 17th, 2014 02:17

No, you're dreaming again . . .

Fred Look

Fred Look November 17th, 2014 04:10

@seannpaurini @rossburrows dreaming you may be but some sort of news outlet appears the only way forward to me.


Ross Burrows November 17th, 2014 04:15

Don't think so. The internet is an infinite source of alternative news. Hasn't made any kind of dent in the command and control of populations by economic slavery. Wish I knew what the answer is, but it is not more news channels . . .

Fred Look

Fred Look November 17th, 2014 04:27

@rossburrows can you name one out of all those sources that does not attempt to influence ?


Ross Burrows November 17th, 2014 06:24

Bloggers attempt to influence, so do we, everybody's doing it.

Main problem is that the right wing owns and controls the main t.v. and radio channels.


[deactivated account] November 17th, 2014 06:28

All we need to do is take one issue and hammer it until NZ accepts it, then the next, then the next.......

It shouldn't be an issue like,"Everybody should smoke drugs", it should be something like the Pickering thesis. That the system we were taught to believe in needs to be changed to achieve that belief.

Fred Look

Fred Look November 17th, 2014 06:30

but what if we did not try to influence we would then be unique! there is no natural law that says news should be used to influence people. such an outlet would stand out above the others


[deactivated account] November 17th, 2014 06:34

@fredlook News without an angle is not as interesting as news with an angle.


Debbie Stanley November 17th, 2014 07:41

Not necessarily a bad idea actually. I've heard a lot of people complain that the news has more "cute fluffy cat pics" than actual news on it these days and I heard a lot from people, before the election, who really had no idea that what news they are seeing is biased because they have no basis for comparison. These people are wanting information but they're not looking to the internet for it either because they don't know how or don't know that it's even out there and blogs do not have a lot of credibility with the non internet population simply because they don't know how to fact check (or don't think to) so they don't know which ones are reliable and think they're all just people soap-boxing. An easily accessible (to the non internet savvy population) news outlet that actually just reported the news rather than sold an agenda might have more audience than you would think.


seann paurini November 18th, 2014 00:00

Have you not observed how 'populist' (in a Fox news way) NZ mainstream media, commentators and 'sanctioned' bloggers are? Its mostly one message from one perspective (left) or another (right) - and they often have the same or very similar views - a very narrow, controlling and yet shallow media. If the IP is 'different' - or as 'innovative' as it seems to be - then I think its Ok to undermine the 'mainstream' - but in a strategic way. I think its OK, in the current climate to disrupt the status quo in radical ways - presented as middle-ground/common sense. Many NZers watch stupid programmes like Paul Henry, the 7pm TV One show with that Hoskings, 'Breakfast' - its all banal and there will be significant numbers of NZ'ers who will hate it - but who will be alienated - I'm not talking about the converted middle-class educated 'back benchers', Q&A and The Nation watchers -- not talking about boring political blog watchers - I mean an all out attack on NZ through a TV channel with a deliberately opposing view to the status quo but presented in a palatable way. I consider RT an example of this. Sometimes Al Jazeera, Channel 4 UK is another example, maybe PBS - obiviously 'Democracy Now'. Imagine if NZ'ers could tune in to real news???? And such a channel could front innovative/social justice/entreprenurial alternatives, invite big thinkers etc on. The point is to sweep up the entire populace not just classed sections. PS. Nothing wrong with populism and pushing an agenda - if its genuinely progressive and well organised/structured/admits limitations and challenges, e.g. not everyone would support such a channel - and that's OK - the point is to advance this as a democratic occurrence, genuinely wanting popular participation.


Debbie Stanley November 18th, 2014 07:58

I do remember a time when the news did used to just report the news not push an agenda. In fact that was sort of supposed to be the point of public funding. To make sure that informative/creative shows got made & weren't sidelined just because they wouldn't be profitable and to make sure that our news & current affairs programs didn't have to tailor their reporting to fit a boss's agenda and it actually worked for quite a long time. I never trust any news source that has an agenda (especially if it's telling me what I want to hear). trouble is that now, that means all news sources. I would love to hear fair, balanced reporting again, even if I didn't like what it had to say. I like making informed choices and I like other people to be able to do that too even if I disagree with their choices. To me that's agenda enough.


[deactivated account] November 18th, 2014 10:03

A TV station is definitely a good idea.


Nicholas Greet
November 18th, 2014 23:01

Do we still need the internet party and if the answer if yes, then get down to basics, also, and I mean this in the affirmative - revote on party president and leader, the founder, an executive committee and sub-committees to take us forward.

Fred Look

Fred Look November 19th, 2014 22:55

its not about the platform TV..Vlog. but the editorial policy : Just Facts. relevant information that contextualises those facts. Zero opinion. Zero spin.
and the journalistic integrety to find the important facts.


[deactivated account] November 23rd, 2014 08:02

So, what do we do now? Do we have a system for voting for a new leader? Do we still have a visionary?


seann paurini November 23rd, 2014 08:13

Visionary? Dispense with all of that language for a start. Ask Kim.com for 3.5 million, he can sit on the advisory but stay out of the limelight. Put $1.5m into building the party and searching for 5 of the best candidates NOW. $1m into those 5 candidates (1-1.5 years b4 election pay them $50-$60k each to work FULL TIME on the campaign and they can each hire a FT spin doctor) and $1m into adv. (proportional - majority in the last 3-6 months).


[deactivated account] November 23rd, 2014 08:14

The Review groups set up by the Executive are working through all these issues. If the Party has the support of enough members to continue as a Party the Constitution sets out the process.

Under our current system. Members vote for a President to lead the organisation and the Party Leader is chosen under the rules by the Executive Committee when we have less than 3 MPs.


[deactivated account] November 23rd, 2014 08:25

The Party Visionary role can easily be removed from the Constitution

If we proceed as a Party we should find people willing to donate their time for the passion of the core principles and policies. Full time positions until an election year will not be needed, we should use the opportunity to have a lot of people working across the country to build the grass roots movement. Out of this some future candidates will naturally emerge.

If we spend any money i would expect it should be on supporting the Executive Committee and building the online forums to better communicate our message.

We need to be lean and mean organisation mobilising people and growing our membership base. We need to prove ourselves tenfold to ensure we become the first choice at the ballot box, not just a curious option.

Fred Look

Fred Look November 23rd, 2014 08:38

we have not yet undrstood our principles and the policies were rushed thru and were unsuccessful. We need to start again in a discussion with ALL the members. We cannot now build on a shoddy foundation that has already failed.


Ross Burrows November 23rd, 2014 09:41

It has always been my contention that a change of leadership was neccessary to rebuild the party as accountability is always expected of leaders who fail to win elections.

I think Laila and KDC did their best to ensure the Internet Party formed and got off the ground. Well done guys.

Under new, hopefully elected leadership, the Party has a chance to listen to the members and formulate policies that accurately reflect the will of a clear majority.

I think this will be good for the party and for Laila.

Hopefully Kim and Laila will remain interested parties and contribute to the successful future of the party.

I am also of the view we need to distance ourselves a little from the past and chart a less controversial way of raising public awareness of our forward looking policies . . .


Courtney November 23rd, 2014 13:46

We are Loomio so why would that not be a better name for the party, or the Awakening or as Russel Brand puts it rEVOLution.

If people approached the local farmers markets and Informed them what will happen to most of their stall holders when the new food act comes into being they may be willing to promote what we want to do as it will benefit them as well, and do the same with small businesses in regards to TPPA, especially ethnic and family owned type business. I don't know of many people around our local area (rural SI, National territory) who think it will affect them with their newly converted Dairy units (pffft)

!!!!!!!!!WE NEED REVOLUTION NOW!!!!!!!!
http://www.russellbrand.com/ < follow him

Democratic process won't do it, direct action and collective thinking will


Ross Burrows November 23rd, 2014 21:56

The antidote to the current world government is government by the people of the world.

We who have already woken up, have a sacred duty to wake everyone else up too, however long that takes, however hard that may seem.

Is there a more noble cause to strive for?

think the matrix, the matrix, (be like morpheus) . . .

wake the people from their deep slumber . . .

Colin England

Colin England November 23rd, 2014 22:42


We are Loomio so why would that not be a better name for the party

We are not Loomio. Loomio is a start-up company in Wellington that came up with and developed Loomio.

Democratic process won’t do it, direct action and collective thinking will

Those are democratic process.


[deactivated account] November 23rd, 2014 23:27

What is actually needed is a phone app that simply states: Person B is suggesting such and such changes to the present policy.... do you agree? Txt Y for yes or N for no.

Fred Look

Fred Look November 24th, 2014 02:14

Because we launched in just before the election we had to go arse about it. We should not even be talking policy now.
First: we are the internet party. get all members communicating online and build online participation
Next: Find some common ground in principle.
Then: Construct some policy on that common principles.

Currently the party appears to operate in the failed "left" mode. leaders have discussions with those members who support their views and ignore/exclude the rest of the membership. it wont work and it aint "politics 2.0"


[deactivated account] November 24th, 2014 09:03

Thank the FSM everybody has started talking again. @seannpaurini - That sounds insane. Why should he give us 3.5 million?
@michaelmarsom How long do you think that will take? Many of us have been sitting around twiddling their thumbs waiting for the executive to start up again. The idea is sound though. The current system does not achieve its stated objectives.

I think the part of visionary could be left though. He did after all in-vision the party. I suppose it depends on who votes for and against it.

@fredlook to me is right. We do need a better discussion and a better decision making process where we actually come up with something at the end. Much of the problem seems to be in the stating of the proposal. Many proposals are far to wide reaching instead of specific.

@courtney3 That to me is the perfect example of how we should be working. Targeting where the system isn't working and adding on how it needs to change. Sort of the reverse of the Features and Benefits system for sales. (Features and detriments?)

@fredlook Freds right, we need to build a system and then build on it. Loomio works a little but we need something more structured if we are to change the country and government.

Some way to moderate comments would be a good start to me (slashcode?), more structured proposals, etc.......Perhaps we should all jump onto Loomio for a weekend and bugfix and implement features?


Courtney November 24th, 2014 12:38

Well Draco I asked Google, the all seeing eye "What is Loomio?" and this was the answer

'Loomio is decision-making software to assist groups with collaborative decision-making processes. It is a free software web application. Loomio implements occupy hand-signals but allows groups to interpret these as they wish.'

At the moment this is what we are, we have no real power until we agree to decisions and then venture into the real world and tell people to wake up and get some action happening.

Our current Democracy doesn't work, privatizing state assets, corporate sponsorship of political parties, yes even our founder KDC.
As has been stated on here before we need to get back to grass roots. All the pomp and fapf in the Bee Hive, parties pussy footing around each like old tom cats, marking out their territories and never really achieving anything to benefit anything but their own egos and leaving a stinking mess for others to clean up. Its not Democracy its Plutocracy.


[deactivated account] November 24th, 2014 20:22

@courtney3 @fredlook @tane @colinengland . I agree with all of you. In a way Laila did the right thing under the circumstances. She and her sister will tour NZ to encourage social awareness. That is our real role. Until the general population dare to look at least a little bit at what is really going on, we may as well not be an electorate party. Social awareness is where it is at. Education of the masses (sheeple). Doing what Russell Brand, David Icke, Foster Gamble and others are doing is a great way of getting at least some people to wake up.


[deactivated account] November 24th, 2014 20:50

Latest interview with Russell Brand:


Courtney November 24th, 2014 22:11

Who's Coming Over Here Taking Our Jobs? Russell B…: http://youtu.be/OI7WI8fv7LQ

Colin England

Colin England November 24th, 2014 22:49


leaders have discussions with those members who support their views and ignore/exclude the rest of the membership. it wont work and it aint “politics 2.0”

Oh, I don't think it's that. Part of the problem is that policies are discussed in two places: Here and in the policy forum. They need to be discussed in one place. Importantly we need to know what is happening with the policy and how it's developing.


Perhaps we should all jump onto Loomio for a weekend and bugfix and implement features?

Loomio is open source so I'm sure the developers would love to have your assistance


That is not what we are. We are a political party that uses Loomio. Also, Loomio is the business that is developing Loomio.

Our current Democracy doesn’t work,

Yep. That was because it was designed not to work. Representative democracy was designed to keep the power from the people and in the hands of the rich which it does very well.


[deactivated account] November 24th, 2014 22:54

What are people thoughts on going ahead with a Special General Meeting ASAP? This would be used to appoint an interim Executive Committee of five Full Members and a new President (a by-election as permitted under our Constitution).

These people can then be tasked with process of finding our new leader and preparing for a full and proper AGM in 2015.

We can also use SGM to make a few amendments to Constitution to get the ball rolling on a creating a ongoing and lasting organisation.

Once we know outcome of survey we know how many people are committed to being involved in the movement.


[deactivated account] November 25th, 2014 08:06

@michaelmarsom It would be great to have a General Meeting. Only problem is that there seems to be a group (comittee) who see themselves as the party and they appear to make decisions without involving this Loomio forum. So far we (here on Loomio) have not been involved in any 'inside' discussions since the election.
I have tried to request the committee's involvement on Loomio; both here, on Laila's Facebook and on IP's Facebook page... the response... ZIP!


[deactivated account] November 25th, 2014 08:24

HEY! just discovered this: https://internet.org.nz/forum/login
I don't recall being informed that they had abandoned Loomio and made a different forum.... Anyone else???

Colin England

Colin England November 25th, 2014 08:36


They haven't abandoned Loomio per se. In fact I'm reasonably certain that they added Loomio after the forum was up and running.

As I say above, the real problem is that there's two places - well, three if you add in Facebook as well. It should be one or the other and not both. And it should be private to the members which, AFAIK, the Loomio discussion and Facebook aren't.