« David Suzuki talking about air and alveoli
Spotless and PSIS not giving employers a good name »

The Green Party list

Thursday April 3rd, 2008. 9:36 pm by frog

There’s some discussion on Kiwiblog about the Green Party’s candidate list for the election this year. It’s probably an important point to make that the Green’s list is determined by every party member getting to vote on the list position of every candidate. As I said previously it’s a bit like a US primary. Unlike some other parties it’s much harder for celebrity candidates to push their way up the list. They need to win the support of thousands of members rather than a few key campaigns strategists. That means two things

  1. it’s a bit hard to keep preliminary draft lists secret when thousands of party members have copies of it, but that preliminary draft may not mean anything because it hasn’t been voted on yet, and
  2. expect there to be relatively few tantrums once the final list is announced because it will be the result of a democratic and open process.

And as for the big question from commenters at Kiwiblog, ‘who are these people and what do they all believe?’ Well, let me assure you, that they are all pretty environmentally aware wombles.

frog says

Posted in Campaign | Parliament | by frog | Thu, April 3rd, 2008 |

This entry was posted on Thursday, April 3rd, 2008 at 9:36 pm and is filed under Campaign, Parliament. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can email this article to a friend. Printable version of this article. You can leave a response, but trackbacks are not allowed.

21 Responses to “The Green Party list”

  1. Ari Says:
    April 3rd, 2008 at 9:53 pm

    I’m sure anyone who’s within the top ten on the list will certainly be very busy telling us what they believe before the election anyway, right Frog? :)

  2. toad Says:
    April 4th, 2008 at 8:22 am

    At least the Greens won’t have High Court judicial reviews and injunctions being thrown around, claiming the candidate process is undemocratic and breaches section 71 of the Electoral Act 1993, which is what is is happening in the National Party.

    Here is the injunction issued yesterday by Justice Panckhurst against the National Party on the application of one of its prospective candidates in the Selwyn Electorate.

  3. peterquixote Says:
    April 4th, 2008 at 12:16 pm

    fwwog, choose careful up to no 10

  4. peterquixote Says:
    April 4th, 2008 at 12:19 pm

    fwwog, choose careful, expected fwwogs 10.

  5. toad Says:
    April 4th, 2008 at 12:38 pm

    Id don’t normally take much notice of stuff that dad4justice says here or on any other blog, but this contribution from him over at Kiwiblog re the National Party candidate selection fiasco is fascinating:

    PaulL, I have been busy something that would be rather foreign to you, however debate is what you want then I shall take you back to the selection of Brian Connell in 2002. A detailed investigation of Mr Connell was conducted by concerned National Party members belonging to the Rakaia Electorate and it was forward to the Senior Whip John Carter and the Leader of the National Party Bill English. The 17-page report was incredibly scathing of the dubious and dishonest business practices of Connell or to put it in the words of the Human Resources Executive from Wrightson’s;
    “ Connell quickly showed that he was a shady character that could not be trusted.�
    From a Wrightson’s finance executive;
    “Connell was a sleezebag�
    And from yet another Wrightson Executive;
    Connell was a Charlatan and I’m amazed he ‘s not in jail�

    Now Roger was assured in 2002 that Connell would be removed as an MP after he raised this serious issue. The party was warned by intelligent concern blue chaps that they should move quickly to call a by –election in Rakaia. It would have been a golden opportunity for them to demonstrate that it is rebuilding with people of integrity and credibility. But Bill didn’t understand the implications and consequences of Connell. He has since learnt the hard way what a liability the snake is .

    Now before you half-cocked dimwits start on me again you must understand that Roger was assured by Senior National members that his standing for the other party would not prejudice or hinder of acceptance as the National candidate for Rakaia. I mean to say they helped finance his campaign to that other party, as Connell’s term in office was only meant to be temporary. Surely this must silence you bent blue boys as Connell’s actions have shown how right we were about this corrupt cretin.

  6. big bro Says:
    April 4th, 2008 at 2:39 pm

    Frog

    Why on earth would the Greens insist “gender equity”, surely the best people should be higher up the list irrespective of their sex.

  7. StephenR Says:
    April 4th, 2008 at 4:03 pm

    Oddly I agree, though im not sure what the exact definition is that the Greens use for this…4 of the top 5 are women on that Kiwiblog list anyway…But does it matter a damn when the order of the list is voted for by members anyway?

  8. Roman Says:
    April 4th, 2008 at 4:52 pm

    Wheres BJ Chip today? Awhile ago he was telling me that he wanted the EFA to save NZ from US style campaigning. Now we learn from the Commission that any group can spend $120,000 to criticise any Party.
    Well done Greens. We are getting even closer to the US system. Look to see labour and the greens outspent bigtime. And legally.

  9. toad Says:
    April 4th, 2008 at 5:02 pm

    Roman, $120K is about 10% of what the EB spent last time attacking the Greens and Labour in trying to get a National-led Government.

    The whole point of this part of the EFA isto put some limit on it to level the paying field. Otherwise someone might come along at this year’s election and spend $10m. I think $120K is reasonable, as long as we know who is bahind the advertising. $1.2m is not.

  10. Ari Says:
    April 4th, 2008 at 10:54 pm

    BB, as far as I know gender equity is only a policy for co-leaders. I could be wrong about that though.

    Roman- that’s kinda unrelated to the Green list ;) The Greens have never opposed extra spending for third parties, just wanted it transperant and accountable.

  11. BluePeter Says:
    April 5th, 2008 at 9:59 am

    Toad,

    But an unlimited number of groups can spend 120K each, thus making a nonsense of spending caps.

    BTW:

    “The German government has scrapped plans to raise the amount of bioethanol in regular petrol next year…”

  12. Gerrit Says:
    April 5th, 2008 at 10:57 am

    As Roman points out, the recent decision to allow the EMPU to be a third party means any two people can set up an organisation as a third party. And yes, that what toad and frog said they were against has happened. We now have unbridled volumes of money in the election.

    Both from the conservative and the progressive side.

    Made the comment (when the EFA was still the EFB that this would occur) and yep, BJ worse fears have beeen realised.

    Have the feeling that this is the exact outcome the labour party wanted all along and the Greens, once again, have been strung along and left out to dry.

    Because the swing voter is going to be heavily influenced by the various campaigns, the Green vote may well crumble (at which neither the reds nor blues will shed a tear).

    The Green party list may for all intense and purposes be useless as without a constituant seat and or less then 5% list vote, the Greens may not even be in parliament.

  13. big bro Says:
    April 5th, 2008 at 11:16 am

    Toad

    “Roman, $120K is about 10% of what the EB spent last time attacking the Greens and Labour in trying to get a National-led Government”

    That little quote from Toad is the real reason behind the EFB, it is designed to stop a change in government nothing more or nothing less.

  14. kahikatea Says:
    April 5th, 2008 at 2:04 pm

    # big bro Says:
    April 5th, 2008 at 11:16 am

    > That little quote from Toad is the real reason behind the EFB, it is designed to stop a change in government nothing more or nothing less.

    actually, the real beneficiaries of the EFB in the long run will be the rural people and other traditional national supporters. It’s their party that’s been taken away from them by the influence of big money.

  15. frog Says:
    April 5th, 2008 at 2:44 pm

    It is not so much a gender equity requirement for the list as a wish to make sure the gender balance doesn’t get skewed too much. Clumps of men or women here or there are not important. Ari is correct that our use of gender split co-leadership for the main segments of the party is clearly articulated policy.

  16. jh Says:
    April 5th, 2008 at 6:11 pm

    The Greens might be better to select from the other end of the list; some real people…. Oh! and while I’m at it NZ First could be tidied up and become the NZ LifeStyle Party… :mrgreen:

  17. jh Says:
    April 8th, 2008 at 6:51 pm

    I don’t get the make up of the “Greens” the list selection doesn’t represent the NZ community as much as one would expect. There seems to be a heavy weighting of John Minto types. The feeling I get is that there is a secret room or set of texts (ideology) which is circulated amongst the inner circle but kept dimmed for those outside that circle.

  18. StephenR Says:
    April 9th, 2008 at 8:09 am

    Eh? Maybe secret midnight ritual sacrifices too?

  19. samiam Says:
    April 9th, 2008 at 8:54 am

    Silly me, but…
    Any chance the green list could be based around green candidates?
    You know, the ones on an environmental ticket?
    Oh, you don’t have any of them?
    Sorry to bother you, I just thought it might be a good idea.

  20. StephenR Says:
    April 9th, 2008 at 8:57 am

    Unless you actually know these people, how do you know they *aren’t*??

  21. samiam Says:
    April 9th, 2008 at 9:51 am

    Here’s hoping!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.