SPC
So long as ‘the government’ [Labour and/or National, NZF/UF] represent the very people you say can’t be changed, why would they want to adopt Green policies?
Reliance on Labour to adopt Green policies is a flawed approach. Unless the Greens have direct control over the levers of power [bureaucrats, law making system, appointment of judiciary etc], change will be so incremental as to never register.
Since the Values Party of 1975 which secured 5.3% of the vote, to the Green vote of 5.3% in 2005, the core issue is that our well meaning but often poorly structured and marketed policies are not resonating. Why?
Because voters instinctively understand we only desire to influence, not exercise power to bring about change.
This creates two tests to pass to have effect – the ordinary citizen, and the political parties who currently represent them.
The former have more in common with our values and principles than the latter. Why give ourselves two hurdles?
Bypass the other parties, and go direct to the voter. If they choose to vote for us, we have to show them respect and show them we’re prepared to govern well and represent them.
I’m not sure if the Green party is prepared to govern, but believe there’s a mood for change to tackle this shift away from being purely an ‘issues’ group, towards a party prepared to assume the responsibility of actually exercising the power of government.
With the Labour move towards the right of the center, the liberal-left vacumn this creates is where the Greens should move into and replace the Labour Party as the natural core party of the liberal-left.
It’s been coming for some years, but Labour/National are simply tweedledum and tweedledee now.
Neither will respond to core Green policies for change, except in highly emasculated forms.
We participate in power, or sit in the swamps and mangroves with frogs, crabs and other creatures.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

So while (under your approach) “THEY ARE” being better informed about what Greens in coalition government might mean, it won’t change their opposition to it.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

DR

I think business/farming know that the short term profit basis to their agenda, is inconsistent with Green policy (media merely reflect their relationship to their sponsors and otherwise mainstream perceptions). So while their being better informed about what Greens in coalition government might mean, it won’t change their opposition to it. Nothing will convince them to buy into Green policy but public/consumer pressure on them. And they are not the means to realising this.

“Thinktanks and interest groups seek to have others adopt their policies and solutions. Politcal parties exercise the power needed to achive the policies.We’re the Green Party, not the Green issues group, and the party exists as a means to secure power so that our policies can be implemented.”

The Green Party will always be the “Green issues” group using the political process to reach the public through the media and using public support to have a place in representative government. The role is to have government adopt the programme, not being in government.

“Our 2008 objective should be to fill the liberal-left vacumn left by Labour’s move to the right, and target a minimum 15% of the vote. Our objective for 2011 should be to replace Labour as the true liberal-left party in NZ with a minimum 30% of the vote. With this level of voter endorsement, our policies can begin to come into fruition.”

Sounds like the ACT party hopes a few years back.

10% is possible as a new benchmark – especially if the Harre, McCarten and Jackson come on side (and Greens and MP reach accord), rather than contest with Greens for the Labour left vote. But it’s about gaining critical mass in the centre. When such accept the logic of Green thinking, then Labour will include Greens in coalition governments the way it has Progressives since 1999.

A 10/40% or 15/35% share of the vote with Labour would suffice – provided the centre accepts the logic of Green thinking, Labour can implement policy without risk to it’s vote.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Peacenik:
Yes, I’m in one of the three seats that increased the Green vote. Yes, I was out on the streets. Yes, I supported local electorate initiatives. Yes, I look forward to being even more active as circumstances permit in the future. Yes, I will offer suggestions on how to run a better campaign in 2008.
SPC:
No appeasement is needed to build communications and better understanding between the GP and business, farming and media interests. It’s about being open to listen to their practical concerns and to remove their fear of the unknown and untested aspect of what GP policies mean in practice.
It’s about looking for what we hold in common with individuals, not what keeps us apart.
It’s about having respect for their position, their concerns and their needs.
It’s about demonstrating that our values and principles are often shared, and giving them an opportunity to buy into our approach to resolving issues at a personal level.
Thinktanks and interest groups seek to have others adopt their policies and solutions.
Politcal parties exercise the power needed to achive the policies.
We’re the Green Party, not the Green issues group, and the party exists as a means to secure power so that our policies can be implemented.
That’s rather blunt I know, and we have core values, principles and ethics which dictate how we exercise power.
Our 2008 objective should be to fill the liberal-left vacumn left by Labour’s move to the right, and target a minimum 15% of the vote. Our objective for 2011 should be to replace Labour as the true liberal-left party in NZ with a minimum 30% of the vote.
With this level of voter endorsement, our policies can begin to come into fruition.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I hope DR will submit a comprehensive report on how we should have campaigned better to the election review. As DR is a ‘card carrying member’ of the party it will be interesting to read his/her insights and also hear what DR will personally DO to make a positive difference next time. Perhaps stand as a candidate? Clearly s/he would be superior to the one’s we have now. Why stop there. Go for co-leader I say. In fact, why not role both co-leaderships into one!

As for electorate level organisation, I presume DR must be active in Wellington Central, Rongotai or Banks Peninsula as they were the only electorates to increase their votes. Otherwise DR ain’t that crash hot him/herself.

it’s a lot easier being a virtual member pontificating on the web than it is getting out on the streets in the real political world where many voters take more seriously who they are going to pick for NZ Idol than which party they are going to vote for in the general election.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

DR

You think building up communications with business/farmers and “media”, is achievable? And if so, desirable? They do favour right wing government, or a centrist Labour one which listens to them.

To achieve their favour would mean appeasement. Greens want to realise change. This requires gaining critical mass in the centre gound of public opinion – when this occurs “media” will report and business/farmers will accept a new reality.

But Greens will always be a progressive party of 5 to 10% of the electorate (limited by the Alliance/Green division on the left period), success is measured in acceptance of policy by other parties, not in coming into power.

Being tough in politics, is not synonomous with being successful in gaining support for policies – governments do what they feel is acceptable to the public.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

The Greens could probably do with Bodie and Doyle’s help now – That Mr Dunne looks like an enemy of the state – Ci5 would soon have him ‘banged to rights.’ Perhaps Keith Locke could be Cowley?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Nice one Stuey!

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

DR is correct. That some of the posts are discussing a cartoon fills me with dismay. We need a strong leadership that will stick to the basic issues: Overpopulation. The myth of growth. Education.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

the DR right fwwog, yous scwrewed and you donts see it, but you will, helengrad 3, yuk,
also see that the carbon coyote still look kind of, well, daed, fwwog,

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I don’t see why it is obviously Upstairs Downstairs, I also first thought of Cinderella.

You’re showing your age frog by citing Upstairs Downstairs! But I agree with the “the real power lay beneath the stairs”.

Even if it is Cinderella, it’s also hopeful since we are therefore destined to be at the ball … although in disguise so that the establishment doesn’t recognise us and so can applaud our policies.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Frog, you’re spinning the fact that Labour has screwed the Green Party.

We need Green leaders with cojones, who understand the need to move beyond being just a source for policies that other parties emasculate, and who have the intestinal fortitude to claim a share of political power to ensure New Zealand has a just social and environmental future.

‘Spokeswoman for solar heating’ for goodness sake. Pathetic. ‘Spokesman for buy locally made’ ….good grief. These are nonsense baubles, and will be full of burble.

No wonder the Green Party executive decided not to hold its promised SGM. There would’ve been blood on the floor. What an abysmal sellout, and no arguing about ‘this is the hand the voter dealt us’ excuses.

We Greens [I am a financial, card carrying member] ran a poor campaign, chose generally poor candidates, have had six years in Parliament to build communications with media, business, farmers, and every other group with a name and chose not to, and have allowed image to remain a mishmash of badly thought out and poorly marketed policies.

Frankly, we deserved to be done over. We have been, right royally.

Now, it’s time to change the leadership, the executive, the electorate structures and get some new blood in, people with cojones, who won’t slither away from confronting reality.

We’ve had 30 years to go from 5.3% of the popular vote in 1975 [as Values Party] to 5.3% in 2005. That is not progress my friends, that’s treading a pool of stagnant water.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Yet another reason to add to the “why I won’t vote Labour again” pile. Growing bigger since 1987.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

no frog..i think it means they have been ignored…again/still

your non-defence is almost sad….

phil(whoar.co.nz)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I actually read it as a reference to “Cindarella.” Although, I agree it doesn’t quite fit (and I haven’t seen “Upstairs Downstairs”. Tom – if you happen to be reading this can you enlighten us?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I don’t even think Rod is cast as the butler: looks more like the gardener or odd job man to me. And Jeanette as a tweeny.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I hate to think who Prince Charming is in this case. Dunne or Peters? References to the butler ending up as Cowley are facetious, Frog. You wouldn’t seriously want to be in charge of the spooks would you?

What a disgrace Labour have proved with regard to forming a government. More backbone in a jellyfish, I’d say.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

And Cinders went to the ball and danced with Prince Charming. Joy

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)