2014 General Election

I would not consider running as a PPNZ candidate unless the party reforms itself and becomes functional and above all democratic. As only the board has the power to do anything about it,

I am not hopeful before elections for board seats are held.

Does anyone know when the next elections are due?

@strypey Cash is not a real barrier, if we do manage to get our 500 registered memebers and get a list out we actually get a significant amount of money with which to run our campaign (if we apply for it properly).

The process of getting 500 members should also get more support where we need it.

All of this is, of course assuming we even can get the membership to 500 in time, which I highly doubt, so this really is all a moot point anyways.

I'm not saying we would have to dissolve and all run off to the IP, I'm saying that a possible merger with the IP is one possible course of action to take and one we shouldn't dismiss lightly, after all their positions are very similar to ours. Alternatively, "giving our votes" to the IP in exchange for some say in helping to sway their policy is another possible course of action, often times having two parties work together is a way to gain more seats if one party pulls electoral seats and the other party seats then the4 electoral seats do not count towards the number of party seats. Having this type of relationship with the IP is not beyond reason, imo.

We need to be clear that a formal relationship with between the Pirates and the IP will not happen (at least not for this election), for two reasons:
* KDC is facing extradition on charges of "internet piracy" and cannot publicly associate himself with anything called "Pirate"
* a lot of Pirates distrust KDC and his motives, including some of our own local activists, and people in PP International

However, what I propose is, in practice, very similar to what @peterajamian is proposing:

“giving our votes” to the IP in exchange for some say in helping to sway their policy is another possible course of action, often times having two parties work together is a way to gain more seats if one party pulls electoral seats and the other party seats then the electoral seats do not count towards the number of party seats.

Let's be realistic though, whatever we do, we have zero chance of having an MP after this election. Running electorate candidates would be a tactic to build public awareness of our existence and our principles, and build the organisational capacity of local campaign teams, and recruit new members, so we are in a better position in 2017.

We don't need to formally endorse the IP or any other party (although we could), but it would be helpful to our cause to publicize an analysis of the various party's policies as they compare to ours, and even rank them.

I agree we could talk policy with the the IP (and maybe other smaller parties; Greens? ACT?). As I've said elsewhere, I think trying to attack them will only hurt us, not them. If we decide to challenge them in public on a point of principle, we need to do it as allies, not competitors.

Well, another thing to consider is that if we can qualify (and as I said before) running list candidates gives us access to a lot of extra funding (somewhere around $20,000 iirc). Even if we only run a single list candidate and just use the funding to help our electoral candidates it's worth it, imo.

The point about relating to the IP is that it's going to be very hard to work with them (or for them to take us seriously) if we're not at least registered and have the ability to run a list. Having that ability could even allow us to not run a list in return for some favours (although see what I said about funding above).

Note that I'm actually not certain if we have to run a list or if we just have to be legally registered as a party with our 500 members to get that funding. I'm not even sure if there's a difference in the eyes of the law.

Oh, and yes I know why KDC said he couldn't work with us, you forget I was actually the person he called to cancel our meeting at the time. That was supposed to be a situation that would last only a few months, and now it's something like two years later and instead of getting back to us and working with us again he's turned around and formed his own party without so much as a word.

I have no love lost for KDC, but I do think that given the right circumstances we may still be able to work with his party since we do have very similar (stated) goals.

@peterajamian, I would like to consider your thoughts, but I can't. Simply because I try to think how talking to the IP would practically work. At our current state, only the board would have the authority to do that. But the board doesn't even bother to talk to US, so how would you get them to talk to someone else?

One would think that this discussion here would be about the core an issue for the board as it can be. But yet, as far as I can see, @davidpeterson is the only one from the board who as been putting in some sort of input. Not much of a guidance, though. A little bit enigmatic, I would say.

You have asked a number of times to get a number for the current membership. But, yet again, only the board could answer that but will just not do so. I am sure that @strypey s estimate of about 200 is much more realistic than >500 and skyrocketing. But still, we are all running around as if there would be some realistic chance to run a party list. @davidpeterson is encouraging this with his vote without providing any reasoning behind it and without any clarification in the numbers.

Let's stop wasting our time here unless the boards engages the discussion.

I don't even know who all the board members are.

Can someone please post a list of the board members and their role?

And does someone know when they board is to be elected the next time?

I would like to thank you, @strypey, for seriously considering to take the burden of running as candidate. Please let me know if and how I can help from Wellington.

If someone in and around Wellington would consider the same, please let me know as well, as I can probably be more helpful to a local candidate. @kirktwist, maybe? Anyone?

@peterajamian I’ve only been active in the Pirates for about 6 months, and this is the first time I’ve come across you in any Pirate communications, so I assumed were a new member. My apologies for teaching Grandma to suck eggs :)

What I’m trying to explain to you is that the IP have no reason to take us seriously, whether we scrape over 500 and get registered or not. They have serious funding, and after only formally existing for a couple of months, they have thousands of members - more than 500 turned up to KDC’s pool party. The only way we could be taken seriously by the IP is to have two things:
* properly developed policies which are more ambitious than theirs, or cover areas where they don’t have policy
* a much larger membership

Struggling to run a party vote campaign will suck up time and energy that would be much better spent on developing policy. There’s no way we will grow our membership if we are perceived as being in competition with the IP. Why?

As I’ve already said, if we run a list, the best we can do is suck off a tiny sliver of their potential vote. If they ally with Mana, we might get a protest vote from people who normally vote Libz (although they’re just as likely to vote ACT or for a protest vote Cannabis Party).

However, the perception of all those thousands of potential supporters who have joined the IP, would be that we are competing instead of cooperating, and potentially stopping the IP from getting to 5%. We would be seen as a bunch of selfish idiots who put our pet project before the cause. Whether or not this is true, or fair, is not the point. This is how people will see it, and we will wreck our chances of building support for a strong launch in 2017, when the IP thing has blown over, or like the Greens, started drifting towards weak, compromised positions.

Look, as I’ve said already, I wish we were in a position to run a strong campaign in this election, but the truth is that we’re not. As @hubatmcjuhes points out, our elected Board are AWOL in this discussion, except for a couple of brief comments by @davidpeterson (VP) and @andrewmcpherson (Treasurer). Anyone who thinks this is the the sign of an organisation with a committed leadership capable of taking us into a country-scale election campaign is kidding themselves.