Being in opposition means not voting the budget, and not voting confidence in the government. If Clark presents a ministry with Peters and Dunne in it, and no Greens, I don’t think it would be an exaggeration to say that the Greens have no confidence in that government.

As it happens, the Greens could not bring such a government down — it would have 61 seats without the Greens. And that is precisely why it would be pointless for the Greens to be bound into supporting such a government — there would be no dividend in doing so, since the support is numerically superfluous.

There’s a limit. The Greens will earn nothing but contempt for sticking around where they are not wanted.

“Being capable of” is not the same as getting the votes or having the ambition to do so.

My comment has to do with the perceived maturity of the party. My intended meaning is basically that we do not get the respect we need because we have locked in the mindset “We are a fringe group and we don’t have to think about all the actual problems a government faces” .

THAT DOES NOT WORK for most voters. “What am I getting as an immigration policy if the Greens have a say in it?” “What am I getting as an defence policy if the Greens have a say in it?”

If you leave the questions unanswered then someone else (E.B.) will fill in the blanks. It costs us. It even costs labour, as our “soft target” allows attacks to wash over on their demographic too.

If we really want to stick to the fringes and play along the shore of the big river we certainly can do so. I have pointed out repeatedly that this is dangerous and the latest near-death experience should be kept in mind… and for most of your post I agree with your point.

However, with all due respect… I don’t think we managed a successful communication of my intended meaning into your understanding … which is probably at least PARTLY my fault. Sorry.

Finally…
No, the Greens are not going to supplant Labour, and gain an absolute majority in parliament. Ever. Forget about that idea.

In the long run, if Labour adopts Green ideas and ideals, it becomes the “Green” party… and we become the majority. If the environment and peak oil show us to be correct most of the time in this area, we could very easily reach a point where IF we’ve done our homework, we are co-equal or senior members of a Green-Labour coalition. That could be in as little as 2 decades. It would not be in the next election. I doubt however, that with MMP there will be many (if any) absolute majorities.

respectfully
BJ

alistair ..you show a refreshing optimism re the status quo of the various political parties..

a read of new zealand political history will show that parties come and parties go…..

if i felt the green party was doomed to some relatively irrelevant rump role forever..i wouldn’t have suppported/voted for them for the last nine years or so…

can you not see the inevitable changes time/effort brings, and the growing relevance of the green message, as harbingers of an eventual/possible ascension..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)

No, the Greens are not going to supplant Labour, and gain an absolute majority in parliament. Ever. Forget about that idea.

However, in order to be respected, if Labour makes a deal with both NZF and UF, then the Greens should be in opposition. Not with National and Act, but a principled, loyal, left-wing opposition. A centrist government ought logically to have an opposition on each side.

That, I believe, is the only position that can gain us respect in the current situation. It hardly matters what policy deals are made; with no ministers to see them carried out, and some ministers actively working against them, Green policies will only be a source of further frustration and humiliation under a centrist government.

I find that I agree in this. In spite that I generally argue that we have to reword policies and have policies that make the mainstream Kiwi comfortable with our ideas. That’s how we get above 10% firm… we ATTRACT the center, not move into it.

But the question now isn’t policies but principles. Core support could be lost WITHOUT any potential gains.

Now that we’ve had the election and it’s an indeterminate but likely longish time til the next, it is time to stick to those principles.

We cannot ever be seen as independent until we can be seen as capable of governing without labour.

respectfully
BJ

then it is a matter of ‘goodnight irene..’

yes alistair…the greens are in that familiar post-election relatively powerless position…(ready to be a green-tinted handbag for clark and peters..?..oh joy..!..)

(once again..those policy gains had better be bloody impressive…)

somehow..i think this green party ethos of blind alliegance to labour isn’t serving us at all well..eh..?..

i don’t have a pat answer to that conundrum…but it is something we should be talking about/working on…y’know..the old mantra..’neither left nor right..but out in front’….we need to translate that into a reality… before the green party can gain the power/size required to do the job…..

somehow a more independent green stance needs to be worked on…

phil(whoar.co.nz)

I would not have brought myself to vote Labour but I still think that the outcome was as close to ideal as you could get considering the very fine line that exists between the Greens shedding enough support to Labour for them to be the majority, and the Greens remaining above the 5% threshhold.

I don’t think that those votes went to Labour because the Greens were in danger of dipping below 5%, and I think that this result demonstrates that the core support under trying circumstances is still there, /not/ that it has dropped.