Talk:List of political parties in New Zealand

Local Parties?
Should local only parties like Citizens and ratepayers be listed? or maybe mentioned briefly in a seperate section?


 * I think there are probably good points and bad points about listing local parties &mdash; some, like Citizens and Ratepayers, are fairly well established, but others seem to appear and disappear very quickly (more so in some cities than others, I think). They would therefore be difficult to track. But a section on prominent or noteworthy local parties seems like a good idea, yes. It would probably be best to keep them separate from national-level parties, though, just for the sake of clarity. -- Vardion 10:15, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Personally I wouldn't like to add local parties to an encyclopedia. E.g. in my municipality Lingewaard in the Netherlands three local parties are active. Shoild I add them?, no I don't think so. --Gangulf 18:41, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The Citizens and Ratepayers is a sub-group of the National Party, so should probably get a mention there instead. Other than that I don't think there are any major ones that need to be mentioned anywhere --Gregstephens 04:06, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The C&R aren't a sub-group of National, it is a politically independent org from National, though many identities in C&R are National members. Historically, there have been ACT, NZ First and non members of any party in C&R. The current  leader of C&R, David Hay, is not a member of any party. I think this could be expanded to include local body groups. Organisations like C&R, City Vision, Chch2021, and Vision Wanganui show a maturing of local govt towards organised groups in NZ. FriendlySam (talk) 08:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Reaction on changes by Vardion
I added the links to lists of parties at the see also section. Furthermore, A short definition in an article on parties in NZ HK is relevant. So I reverted that. I hope in this way we can agree/compromise. Gangulf 14:26, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

National Front
"The National Front has applied for registration..." It was my understanding (gathered from their discussion board) that they currently lack the required number of registered supporters to register as a party, and so have not applied yet... what is the accuracy of this statement? porges 08:25, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

I keep a close eye on the Public Notices (which is required to become a political party). They have not yet registered. The reason is most likely because of lack of numbers, but it could be due to any number of reasons (drawing up party constitution, not having enough financial memebers, etc. --Gregstephens 03:10, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep an eye on this page and the PDFs in it. It will list them if/when they become official. - SimonLyall 03:58, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)\

They are not registering as a party for the election so they can't go for the party vote, but will contest electorate seats. --Gregstephens 00:41, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Further name changes.
According to stuff various parties have made name changes etc. It's not all updated here but the .doc at the bottom seems to be right. - SimonLyall 08:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * True, but I'm not sure that we necessarily have to mention these changes &mdash; omitting the "Jim Anderton" from "Jim Anderton's Progressive Party" is really just like omitting "New Zealand" from the previous "New Zealand Progressive Party", isn't it? -- Vardion 02:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Links
I have added an external link to the elections nz webpage, as this is the deffinative controlling body in NZ. They also have a rather good set of info on MMP. I hope this is OK...?

Two Republican parties?
I'm a bit confused about The Republic of New Zealand Party and the Republic Aotearoa New Zealand Party. Are these separate parties? Kerry Bevin appears to be the leader of the latter, but a couple of articles refer to him as founding the former.-gadfium 23:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Confusing. Well, they were definitely separate parties at some point, because they both applied for broadcasting funding. Kerry Bevin is definitely associated with the Republic of New Zealand Party, because he's their top-ranked candidate, but this website, which seems to be the RONZP homepage, doesn't mention him. (The website only mentions John Kairau and Gray Phillips, neither of whom are actually candidates). I can't find anything linking Bevin to the Republic Aotearoa New Zealand Party apart from clones of our article, so it could be that our article is mistaken in linking him to Republic Aotearoa New Zealand. It could also be that Bevin originally was associated with Republic Aotearoa New Zealand, but has changed parties, or the two parties have merged. -- Vardion 00:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Kerry Bevin is currently the leader of The Republicans (Republic of New Zealand Party). I think the two parties merged. Republic Aotearoa New Zealand seemed to have been spawned by John Kairau, who intially called it the "People's Republic of Aotearoa Party" (there was a PR I blogged on but now can't find it). The two seem to have been working together. --Lholden 08:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Formatting
The right caption box does not render well with the main body in all browsers. Can someone with better formatting skills than me sort this out? # —The preceding unsigned comment was added by InSpace (talk • contribs). moved from top to bottom as per normal talk page formatting --Midnighttonight Procrastinating on uni work... 03:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Is that better? I have just expanded some of the lead-ins, which should move everything else down. --Midnighttonight Procrastinating on uni work... 03:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The Electoral Commission has just published its list of parties applying for broadcastign funding. I've updated the list accordingly. Unfortunately, there's very little information available on some of these aprties - anyone know any more? IdiotSavant (talk) 11:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria for unregistered parties
I've done a bit of a cleanup on the unregistered parties category, and proposed two for deletion: Independent National Party and Kotahitanga Te Manamotu Hake Tiriti o Waitangi. Neither ran candidates or registered as a party last election, and neither featured at all in public debate. Evidence for their existence was low - an application for funding or to register a logo. I think both fall below the notability criteria even for a completeist effort like this.

For the future, I suggest the following inclusion criteria for unregistered parties:


 * If the party ran candidates in the previous election;
 * If the party was registered at the previous election;
 * If the party has announced its intention to register or run candidates at the next elction.

Parties which announce that they will no longer be active should not be included, and if necessary, moved to the relevant historical category.

I am currently trying to find out what is up with the New Zealand Liberal Party (2008) to see if they should still be listed. --IdiotSavant (talk) 09:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Student Party and Student Party New Zealand
I notice this party is listed under both names, I'm unsure which is the correct title so I haven't edited but this should be looked into —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.115.149 (talk) 23:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the duplicate entry a little earlier. I don't have any strong feelings on whether to include "NZ" or "New Zealand" in its name, but this would be more appropriate to discuss at Talk:Student Party.- gadfium 01:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

OurNZ Party
This was changed as a certain left-wing blogger wanted to portray the Party as right-wing. Although the majority of the party is to the right of IdiotSavant, this is true of the New Zealand people too. OurNZ does not subscribe to traditional left/ right paradigm. Roalexx (talk) 10:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thats nice of you. However we need to write how others would describe you. Example: A party that supported Nationalisation of industry, more spending on welfare and higher taxes would in most cases be described as "left-wing" even if they said they were a "A solution-based party which looks outside the left-right political paradigm for solutions". In other words come up with NPOV wording not buzzwords - SimonLyall (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't me that wrote it. I would have used my account as then it is less likely to be deleted. How do you explain a party that has a mixture of policy from the left, centre and right wings? It doesn't matter where it comes from, if it works and is a good idea, we tend to pick it up. Roalexx (talk) 04:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Regardless of who wrote it, it is not a neutral point of view. Worse than that, the current description leaves someone who has never heard of the party (like me) with no idea of what the party actually stands for. This needs to be changed to something that meets NPOV. - Roue2 (talk) 08:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have updated this to read "A party advocating a new currency, binding referenda, and a written constitution." which seems (to me at least) to sum up the principles and objectives as outlined on their website. I have included a reference to their principles and objectives. Roue2 (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That looks okay - SimonLyall (talk) 11:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't tell me this is going to be one of the situations where NPOV is used to bully other users. The other one exactly described the party and was written from a neutral point of view. Roalexx (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The previous description did not describe any of the principles or objectives of the party as outlined in the party's website. It contained fluff words which were essentially meaningless and didn't help any person unfamiliar with the party figure out what the party stood for. 'Solution based' doesn't mean anything. I have gone to the party website, summed up what is on there in a neutral way and provided a reference so that readers can check it. What disappoints me is that I have spent time researching and editing a description of a party that received just over 60 votes in the latest by-election because a supporter of the party wants to use wikipedia as a way to promote their party and for my troubles I get accused of bullying. Thanks.  - Roue2 (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that Roalexx has requested editor assistance for this issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#List_of_Political_Parties_in_New_Zealand_-_Our_NZ_Party - Roue2 (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The words solution based focus are on the front page. Did you miss them?

You have opened many issues there. I am looking for a description that actually describes the party. No other party discusses policy with it's members and the general public. We make a concerted effort to put across many points of view, so it appeals to the largest audience, and so it will work in the real world. A fair amount of legislation is based on a good idea, but is removed from the real world and doesn't work as it is meant to.

You may want to note the candidate for Te Tai Tokerau took TVNZ to the courts in order to participate in the televised debates, which is a right under Broadcasting and Electoral law. Unfortunately he struck a judge who does not like serving injunctions and it was denied. Do you not think that this lack of media outlet contributed to such a low voting number?

Perhaps calling you a bully for invoking NPOV was a little extreme, however you are showing bias here. People do use NPOV as a tool to control what is said on Wikipedia, and I am not going to just roll over.

Although the current description is not adequate, it is an improvement on what was originally put there. My problem is that the description is similar to describing the Skytower as tall. It is tall, but there is an awful lot more to it. Roalexx (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It is a short description of a minor, unregistered party. As the description stands, it covers the main points outlined in the parties principles and objectives page. My edit is neutral - please don't accuse me of being anything but neutral. The party has its own wikipage, maybe your effort and time would be better spent expanding that, which is where elaboration of the parties policies should be, not in a brief description. Note to self - don't feed the trolls. - Roue2 (talk) 05:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Colours
Why the different colours for the entries of the Libertarianz, Country, Liberal, Pacific, Progressive, and Reform parties? Dab14763 (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Libertarianz, Pacific and Progressive all competed in and had registered logos with these colours (in the case of the Progressives we used their secondary colour as their main colour was the same as the Labour red), while the Country , Liberal and Reform parties all contested the , with the Country Party and Reform contesting the two subsequent elections. Party colours are meant to differentiate parties, and best practice is to use the colours of the parties' logos and promotional material. Historic parties sometimes present a problem in that we don't know what colours they may have used, or if they even did use such colours. In the case of the Liberal Party we use an international convention of yellow. The colours for Reform and the Country Party were first defined here in 2006 - in both cases green shades were chosen, possibly to reflect the strong rural heritage of each party. In any event, since Reform merged with the ex-Liberal United Party (via the United/Reform Coalition) to form National they needed a colour distinct from National and other existing parties. For more on this subject see discussion on NZ party colours, index of NZ political colours and Political colour. Fan  &#124;  talk  &#124; 01:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Integrity Party and New Communist Party
There is a note on this article which says "Every entry in this list must have an article written in the English Wikipedia, with reliable sources to support inclusion, else it will be removed without warning."

The Integrity Party does not appear notable enough for an article, and the New Communist Party's article was deleted for lack of notability.

Perhaps these entries should be removed from this article. HenryCrun15 (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree. If a party is not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia page then it should not be listed here. Helper201 (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

2020 cull
While its not quite yet time (nomination day for the 2020 election is 18 September), I think we should start thinking about the triennial cull of non-notable parties. at present, I think we're looking at the following:
 * Delete: (not registered, not running candidates, so not notable) Better New Zealand, Kiwi Party (2019), Oytcho-Visha, Libertarian Party NZ (Real NZ Party has already been AfD'd)
 * Move to historic: (ran candidates or were registered in the past, but not active this election): GOdsownNZ, Internet Party (New Zealand)

One I'm unsure about is Direct Democracy New Zealand. They are not registered, and do not plan to run their own candidates (and there's an announcement on their Facebook page about that), but they're now a component party of Advance New Zealand. They could just be included in that article, or do people feel that a component of a notable party is thereby notable? (unfortunately we don't have easy past precedent - the components of the Alliance (New Zealand political party) were all independently notable).--IdiotSavant (talk) 10:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Information on who is actually running will be available here from 2pm on the 19th.--IdiotSavant (talk) 00:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I propose we merge the content from Direct Democracy Party of New Zealand into Advance New Zealand and/or New Zealand Public Party. Direct Democracy is not notable enough for its own article; the independent citations in the article only mention the subject in passing, and I was unable to find any other independent sources that would demonstrate notability. It is also a short article with a lot of overlap with the section on Direct Democracy in the Advance article. HenryCrun15 (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support.--IdiotSavant (talk) 02:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Candidate lists are now up. I've removed The Republic of New Zealand Party from the "move to historic" list because they have a candidate this year, and added Libertarian Party NZ as they haven't run the candidates they indicated they would just last week. The rest are all confirmed. New parties running candidates:
 * Trump New Zealand Party (Kelston)
 * Climate First party(Māngere)
 * Human Rights Party (Mt Albert)
 * Voice of the People (Mt Roskill, New Lynn)
 * Future Youth Party (Tukituki)
 * NZ Economic Euthenics Party (Wigram)
 * I think Climate First and Human Rights have previously had articles which have been deleted. Do we want to undelete and expand them based on new coverage? Or do people feel one-candidate parties are less notable than ones with more than one candidate?--IdiotSavant (talk) 02:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So the test for notability of an organisation (which is specified to include political parties) is that it "is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." For the Trump New Zealand Party, as an example, I was only able to find three sources: the party's own website (not independent); a Reddit post (not reliable) and the Vote.nz page stating the party has a candidate (not significant coverage). As such, I would not create a page for the Trump New Zealand Party. I suspect others may be in the same boat but I haven't checked. HenryCrun15 (talk) 06:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * While I think you're right in the specific cases, the problem with applying the general test is that in NZ non-parliamentary parties tend to get significant coverage only around elections, and are completely invisible the rest of the time. Applying it strictly means Wikipedia not being a useful resource on new or emerging parties in the leadup to an election, which is precisely when people (including journalists) are looking for information on them.--IdiotSavant (talk) 11:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

It might be just me, but some of the descriptions in the table sound like advertisements
For example, the description of the green party says "Like many Green parties around the world it has four pillars: ecological wisdom, social responsibility, grassroots democracy, and nonviolence. The party has an environmentalist platform, and also promotes progressive social policies." Doesn't that sound like something you would see on some promotional material? I would recommend changing it to make it more neutral. Ayvind-Bjarnason (talk) 11:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Is ACT Right-Libertarian?
After discussing on their talk page, and I agreed that it would be best to bring this discussion to this talk page. What follows is a transcription of that discussion:

What are your thoughts on this? Ayvind-Bjarnason (talk) Ayvind-Bjarnason (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * In my opinion: We shouldn't use any phrase like "right-libertarian" if it hasn't been used in a source (preferably by the party themselves), and especially as it's not a term common in NZ English. "Right-wing libertarian" (no comma) could reasonably link to right libertarian, but I'm not sure that that's even necessary here. The party describes themselves as classical liberal, and I don't think it would be unreasonable to add right-wing to that as a second descriptor, but replacing it with a single term that's frankly a little niche (in our NZ context) seems inappropriate. (Although in my view they've shifted quite far from where they once were on the L-R spectrum.) To put it simply, I don't think "right-wing libertarian" or "right libertarian" are helpful descriptors for this encyclopaedia article.
 * I also think the more appropriate place to discuss this is the ACT article's talk page, as this list should be influenced by party pages, and not vice versa. And I should note that this isn't the first, nor will it be the last discussion on the matter. Pinpointing labels isn't unimportant, and it is compelling to a lot of users, but it can be a timesuck, so I encourage caution around that whirlpool. — HTGS (talk) 22:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree with the "preferably by the party themselves" proviso: Wikipedia's policy is for third-party sources.  Self-descriptors can be shamelessly self-serving.  For example UKIP has sporadically described itself as "libertarian", but in no way credibly or supported by a balance of reliable sources.  But otherwise I'd tend to agree.  I'm seeing phrases like it being "split between its libertarian and populist wings", but not descriptions of it as libertarian (or right-libertarian or ring-wing libertarian) generally.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 109 has it correct. We don't give a damn what parties call themselves. We care what reliable secondary source call them. Nil Einne (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

National Party (and other party) ideologies
, regarding the labels of “Christian right” and “Social conservative” for the National Party: I have removed those labels from the party's infobox. I suspect you did not read the sources before copying them over to this page, as the labels aren't supported by the sources and were probably added recently without oversight. It would be strange at this point to label the party as Christian, as this is not a view supported by mainstream sources nor an agenda pushed by the party itself.

Although I don't see your other additions to party ideologies as quite as problematic, I urge you to do your homework on what the respective party pages say in the body before just propagating the latest additions to the infobox. — HTGS (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I strongly disagree, and based on your other edits this is clear biased vandalism against the page due to personal opinions, as you seek to only remove information from New Zealand National Party.  The sources clearly state what positions the party holds, and how they clearly align with the same values listed on the articles for those ideologies.   I suggest seeking a third opinion to review the information, as will I. SjShane (talk) 01:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from personal attacks like calling other editors vandals. You can be blocked by an admin if you continue to rage against people. Kiltroans (talk) 13:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I’ll call the edits as I see them, which is misinformation, and vandalism. I am interested that you have decided to join Wikipedia for the sole reason of joining in on this discussion.    Welcome. SjShane (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of political parties in Abkhazia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)