Should We Have Any Policy or Positions Outside Our Core Policy?

Democratically elected policies doesn't mean the policies will be supported by the majority, or that all of them as package will be palatable to vary many. Polarizing issues could drive away members and potential members as easily as it could attract them, people should be attracted to the core policies first and foremost.
If there is to be an expansion of policy it should be labelled as secondary; positions that can be used to support coalition partners policy but will not be pushed for by the party itself.

David is right that people attracted to non-core policies may not care about the core if the distinction is not kept clear.

It is my view that PPNZ should mainly focus on its core policies.

When one is inevitably asked about a stance on another issue, we should be prepared to answer. But put forward "no official position", i.e. the member questioned should be able to respond with their own personal opinion. But should state that it is their own opinion.

Behind the scenes though the party should discuss these other issues in a semi-formal manner. Because as the party grows it and becomes a serious political force it will be expected to take on more official policies. These will then have to become formal discussions on exactly how the party stands on each issue.

I read on another thread that PPNZ should encourage "evidence based" policy, I couldn't agree more with this stance, I see far too much "gut feeling" and "morality based" policy. But that is a discussion for another thread.

Well we should first and foremost make our core policy clear, but I can say from past experience that we are going to be asked about all sorts of other policy and to not have a stance on policies outside of our core makes us look like a "single policy party" which nowadays equates to "a joke". If we want to be taken seriously in the political arena then having policy on a wide array of things is going to be almost necessary.

Also, I should point out that I think that there are many many other policies that most of our members, coming from similar (technical) backgrounds can agree on, from civil liberties to economics and various other things. No we won't all agree on those, but if we set a high threshold to establish policy, say 2/3 majority vote from the membership, then I think we will find we can still agree on quite a bit and make it established, non-core policy for our party, and it will show the world that the Pirate Party cares about a lot more than just wanting to get free music*.

• I know that "free music" is not what we're really about, but much of the world sees us that way, and having policy in other areas will help to show those people that we are a serious party and not just out for free stuff.

I agree with Peter Ajamian, "one policy parties" are seen as a joke or at best lobby groups.

For example: I am passionate about the advancement of education and learning. This is not a core policy, but one I think PPNZ can grow into. It fits with using technology in innovative ways and young people growing up in a connected world.

LOOMIO is set up so we can develop policy as well as help the party operate. I don't believe in any demarcation between core, non core and future policy. I think the question that Strypey raises is moot. Policy will grow and develop LOOMIO is part of that mechanism. Anyone who deliberately tries to slow the process down will look like that exactly and will be routed around in my view. I have already put out invites to several people and groups of people to pitch their policy ideas on this forum. I hope to see some of them here and hope some of those policies develop, grow and one day pass the bar to be accepted by our organisation.

We need to build up our core membership that believes in our core (this is probably our party's PRIMAIRY goal), and having extra unneeded polices will only drive ourselves further away from this goal as it will dilute down our core membership relative to the whole.

Thus I feel the importance of having at least one election campaign in which we solidly campaign on our core, before even thinking about broadening out. Otherwise we'll lose our essence before we even get started.

Until then the rest of it can be seen as conscious vote issues for our candidates.

Note: I do not totally oppose the concept that PPNZ ever expands it policy base beyond its core.

Just that right now the timing is very wrong, as at a minimum we ought to first have at least one election campaign in which we solidly campaign on our core.

Because until then, even if we set a "high threshold" such as 2/3 we are still running a dangerous risk of brushing away our essence before we even get started.

For example, let's consider a scenario where at a MMORPG we get 2/3 of the members there voting for legalising all drugs (or whatever your personal pet policy is, I just used an example I'd like to see myself, but you could just as easily replace this with "UBI", "carbon tax", "no income tax", "anti-fluoridation", whatever...).

This might sound a little far fetched, but also isn't too hard to achieve, many times PPNZ experiences a voting turnout of half a dozen or less. This means as few as 4 people (or less!) could radically determine the future direction and flavour of PPNZ!

We could completely lose our identity as a "pirate party", and instead be known as the "drugs party" (or whatever you used in your example: "the universal welfare party", "the anti-fluoridation party", "the global warming denialists party", and so on and so on).

That 4 (or less!) members could potentially have such a dramatic say over the future potential party members seems incredibly unfair (undemocratic even? :-P) to me.

Thus my point we must first at least get one election campaign in which we solidly campaign on our core, as then we'll be getting a core membership in hopefully the hundreds who'll be voting on our future policy direction to take PPNZ beyond its core. And PPNZ won't be susceptible to flights of fancy that don't match up accurately with what our future potential members would actually want.

Don't just think for yourself, think for our future members too who have yet to join! And respect their possible wishes, in letting them having a say. Rather than pushing views upon the future membership of PPNZ too early (as once things are set in motion, it often is many many times harder to change it then it was to get it started).

Look at the Green Party as an example, early on they campaigned strongly around their core of environmental awareness on the political stage, and getting environmental issues into the public awareness.

Now they are a significant political force and have a policy portfolio to match that level of maturity.

I think the PPNZ needs to focus on its core policies and expand them as the party grows in stature.

I think your fears have been noted, but now it's time to move on and grow the party. There is realistically nothing you guys can do to stop policy growth except to oppose (or heaven forbid support) each one on a case by case basis. I imagine in the process of that we will all end up with the policies we need. Chill out.

The party has focus and a general direction in mind though. It's not a political vehicle for all and sundry to use for their own agenda, or throwing a bag of random policies on the floor and going with whatever gets picked up.