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

Rob imagine a interview with a reporter for some news story in the upcoming election:

R: "What is the PPNZ stance on roading and infrastructure?"
PPNZ: "We haven't really thought about it"
R: "How about asylum seekers arriving on boats?"
PPNZ: "We haven't discussed that either"
R: "Have you discussed the issues around the synthetic cannabis being sold to minors?"
PPNZ: "We have had some discussions about drug policy...{elobrates}"
R: "What about the proposed changes to the wholesale electricity market?"
PPNZ: "Nothing on that"
etc....

News story: PPNZ all about drugs and free music!!!!

When it could easily go something like:
R: "What is the PPNZ stance on roading and infrastructure?"
PPNZ: "While that is an important issue, PPNZ is spending this election term promoting our core values of; Civil liberties in the digital age and sane limits to patent and copyright terms.

We are working on official party policy in a number of related issues, which we will make public as they are agreed on by the party members."

News story: PPNZ Serious about your freedom!!!

As I say nothing you can do about it. We are democratic. Go with the flow. People are allowed to post policy suggestions and they will be discussed on merit regardless. I'm glad the topic has arisen as people obviously have strong feelings on how they think the party should look like. This is good and I look forward reading what suggestions people have regarding improving the core policies if that is where they believe the focus should be.

What policies are you planning on pushing, Rob?

None to be honest. Currently I'm watching and awaiting what people are coming up with. I've been asked in the past if we have a drug policy and I said not currently. There is now a Loomio discussion on drug policy, which I find interesting, I see this as growth. The next person that comes to me and asks if we have a drug policy I can say no, however if join the party there is a discussion going on the subject for you to join. Similarly there is a discussion on the harmful digital comms bill that I can now point new members to if they are curious. Ultimately I would be completely happy for the party to grow very quickly in membership and policy and believe it to be possible. I see a free trade post and a marmite policy post also. The voting on those issues is transparent and you will be able to see how I feel on issues. A hodgepog party that is massively popular and democratic through a computer discussion system is not something I currently oppose or see as random.

Adam:

Look at the Green Party as an example <<

You are singing from David’s well-rehearsed songbook, and your version of the Greens origins is a fairy tale. The Greens had published policies on most things from the time they left the Alliance, including Drug Law Reform, and this 'politics of addition' is what allowed them to break 5%.

What I'm proposing is that we either do this ourselves, or in an electoral federation with other microparties. Either way, we need to have policy discussions and figure out what the membership things about different issues. The concept of leaving everything outside pet policies to the whims of MPs is beyond ridiculous and totally anti-democratic.

But anyway, I’m actually not opposed to the concept of a fixed and immutable “core policy” enshrined in the Constitution, it's just that I’d actually call what you’re talking about ‘principles’ not ‘policy’. Policy is about fitting principles to current reality. For example, we agree on a general principle of privacy, and against spying, but the policy based on that might be anything for demanding the abolition of the GCSB and SIS, to merely limiting their powers or setting up an independent watchdog. So I also agree with Rob that all policy will change as circumstances change, including those in Core areas.

If we want to attract engaged, new members we should offer the opportunity for them to take full part in the shaping of the party itself. If we stand for democracy but deny it to our own members we have no right to call ourselves Pirate.
Also we cannot separate "Internet" related issues from the offline world. The right to privacy and other human rights do not stop at the modem.

"I think your fears have been noted, but now it’s time to move on and grow the party."

Rob, what point is there to "growing the party" if all the new members being attracted are not joining because of a shared belief in our core? I would not call that "growing the party" at all. Quite the opposite.

The only dangers imo are 1) non-core policies get adopted after only poor consideration or without a supermajority, or 2) if core policies are not clearly seen to dominate our top priorities.

Thing with 2) is that currently any policy we have is automatically a 'top priority' (due to how few properly developed policies we have yet). Once some members actually develop more of our core properly, the Party can actually choose top priorities.

"Rob, what point is there to “growing the party” if all the new members being attracted are not joining because of a shared belief in our core?"

From a previous comment
"I don’t believe in any demarcation between core, non core and future policy."

We have a basic communication problem here. I don't believe in a core policy. I believe in policy. One not created by us or people that really 'care' about the party or by people that have put in the effort or people that have been here from the start, instead I support a policy in progress, one that is decided by our current and future membership. If this means a party that is 'chaotic' or changes into something that nobody can predict than good. I'm into democracy as that is the name of the game, we are a political party that is attempting to gain popularity in a democratic environment. Using technology like Loomio we can be the first party to be truly democratic. That in itself is enough for me. I think there is enough 'core' policy to forge ahead, we know that patents, copyright and privacy will always be tenants for the party. Yes we need to develop that (core policy) as I repeatedly have stated, what people seem to miss is that we can do this concurrently with developing full policy and will probably involve different people. We should naturally have a group working on the core that is what we are after all, I just don't think hindering new and non core policy which will be less developed than what we already have should be in any way hindered as this will be death to getting new members.

I like the differentiation of core policies (to be developed by ourselves) vs interfacing/secondary policies (to define with which other external forces we can cooperate).

Nevertheless, I prefer to think of policies as (suggested) implementations of core principles.

With this in mind, I think we really need to work out what our core principles may be. That said I feel obligated to disclose my views on this matter:

While following the discord of the discussions of the German PP, I have extracted my interpretation of what I believe are the core ideas (heavily biased by my own priorities) in most (if not all) of their concepts. These principles are:
- a radical re-think of the democratic system in favour of better participation and transparency,
- a liberal stance and
- a desire to bold and progressive designs, build to last.

If you regard these aspects as principles, you can unfold a not too shabby area of core fields of interests:

RADICAL-DEMOCRATISM ->
* Real-time Delegation instead of Representation (Liquid Democracy)
* Transparency/Anti-corruption
* Open Data (for the almende)
FREEDOM ->
* Participation,
* De-centralisation
* Equality,
- Eduaction
- UBI + Taxation
* Data protection (for private data)
* Anti-discrimination (minority protection, queer culture)
SUSTAINABILITY
(applies everywhere)

You can make the test by taking any policy you regard as core and check if it not lets shine at least one of the yelled out principles and at the same time doesn't violate any others. It is my believe (and hope) that if you find something that fails this test, then you would also have a hard time finding a super-majority in PPNZ.