NZ Green Party
Who will it be?

Triennially the question goes on to all the MMP parties: So who’s it going to be, who will you go with?

This time, with the exception of the Maori Party, we pretty much know the answer, or will know the answer before the election for all of them.   But what we don’t know is who will Labour go with. This is an important question that people should probably take the time to ask Labour.

We know for instance that there are a lot of voters that sit somewhere between Labour and the Greens.  I’m guessing before they make their choice they would really like to know whether Labour will continue to tie itself to New Zealand First and Winston Peters. And I think they probably have the right to know that important piece of information. I’m sure there are other undecided voters on different parts of the spectrum that feel similarly about either or both of the two big parties.  John Key has been more upfront than you would usually expect from a major party leader – seemingly ruling Roger Douglas out of his cabinet and definitely ruling NZ First out of any government he is part of. By comparison Labour currently appears to be presenting different preferred coalition scenarios to different audiences.

So, if you are out and about attending candidate meetings during the campaign, why not ask the Labour candidates, rather than the MMP parties for a change, who they want to get with.  Put them under the same pressure we get every election year.  And send me some video footage or quotes so we can see if the answers match up.

53 thoughts on “Who will it be?

  1. “We know for instance that there are a lot of voters that sit somewhere between Labour and the Greens. I’m guessing before they make their choice they would really like to know whether Labour will continue to tie itself to New Zealand First and Winston Peters.”

    Of course it is blindingly obvious that Labour and NZF are tied together, with only 6 weeks to go.

    Is choosing between Labour and the Greens really a “choice” if the Greens are also tied to Labour?

    If the Greens want to increase their party vote and be a major player in forming government policy, they need to convince voters they can divorce themselves from their creepy partner. This is the time for positive action, not false allegiances. The Greens are going to look pretty stupid biding their time on the opposition benches while the retired Helen Clark travels the world claiming credit on the Emmissions Trading Scheme.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  2. “Helen Clark travels the world claiming credit on the Emmissions Trading Scheme.”

    Why is that characterised as being special? The distinction of being the 23rd or so country in the world to have one is not that great.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  3. I think the Greens are going to face some collateral damage by tying themselves to Labour. The premise I use is:

    1. A vote for the Greens is a vote for Labour. That’s what committing yourself to a coalition before the election means, rather than negotiating in good faith with both parties about which of your policies can be achieved, after the election.

    2. A vote for New Zealand First is a vote for Labour. Labour have bent over backwards, including taking a predetermined view of the privileges committee deliberations, to pander to NZ First. They haven’t shown any of this kind of loyalty to the Greens. Labour have shown exactly where their loyalties lie, and it is with Winston.

    3. Therefore, a vote for the Greens is a vote to throw out principle, liberal social values, or protecting the environment, because supporting Labour means supporting Labour supporting Winston. Because the Greens+Labour are so far behind National+Act+United, the only way Greens+Labour can form a government is by NZ First staying in Parliament. And you know how that is going to end up.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  4. I’ve been saying it on websites and usenet for almost a decade now. The Greens unwavering support for Labour has done nothing but allow Helen to pour the proverbial effluent over your heads every three years and yet the Green party keeps licking it up.

    I think the Greens would not only appeal to a wider cross section of voters tired of the big parties but also be in a better position to achieve many of your goals if only you’d lose the hard left socialist element that seem to be calling the shots in Green HQ.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  5. What if…Greens got 10% of the vote? Would dilute Labour’s influence, and this may well be a selling point, if a very risky one – ‘we’ll go with Labour, but remember, the more people vote Green, the less Labour there will be!’. hmm

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  6. Please Greens, please, don’t align yourselves with a party before election day! Why does that line of thinking seem so unfathomable!? Just take the principled line of working with whoever best supports our leading election policies in post-election negotiations. We are a party of principle aren’t we? We got screwed by Labour at the last election, why let the same thing happen again? Do we want to scrape through with 5% or claim a deserved 15%? Even those on the right, in the current climate (no pun intended), could see a Green party getting 15%. Argh, I hope you can sense my desperation.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  7. OK, the Greens will be making a statement before the election on their preference between Labour and National. It doesn’t mean definitely going with the stated pref; not supporting either is also an option, which will be determined after the election. It also doesn’t mean not working at all with the non-preferred party, but does say something about how close the relationship could be expected to be.

    “Just take the principled line of working with whoever best supports our leading election policies in post-election negotiations.”

    The Greens state a pref because they believe the voting public should know something about the kind of government we’d be most likely to support. The choice will be made based on policy and intended programme. It would therefore be surprising if the pref was not Labour, since the reality is that they are closer to the Greens on many things. The Nats have good reason to want to be able to work with Greens as doing so would give them green cred in dealing with environmental issues. However, they don’t seem too fussed as they’ve done nothing to position themselves as taking any Green issues seriously, rather they have done the opposite. Plus their social policy is anathema to Greens. How is is principled to say we’ll see after the election if we know before?

    It is one thing to argue that if the numbers fall in such a way that the Nats actually need the Greens, we’d get something we want. But such a circumstance is a recipe for disaster it seems to me. Even Labour, who have much more empathy for Green issues are notoriously difficult to work with. The Nats don’t seem even to understand and are often ideologically opposed to environmental issues – how on earth would such a relationship last? And when the crunch came it would also likely split the Party as well.

    Another spell in opposition seems a better choice to me in such circumstances.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  8. >>could see a Green party getting 15%

    A green party could, yes.

    As a Labour First supporter, you’re down around 5% again. Or less. So I encourage you to align with Labour First :)

    Or become a green party….

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  9. Valis said:
    “The Greens state a pref because they believe the voting public should know something about the kind of government we’d be most likely to support.”

    could alternatively be:
    The Greens don’t state a pref because they believe the voting public should know that, whatever the government, the election policies they voted for are most likely to be supported.

    Valis said:
    “However, they [National] don’t seem too fussed as they’ve done nothing to position themselves as taking any Green issues seriously, rather they have done the opposite.”

    But if, on election day, we’ve taken a 7% chunk out of their apparent 50% polling then they might have to.

    Rawiri Paratene nailed it when he said [I paraphrase] we have to look after number 1, and that’s the planet. That is simply what the Greens need to campaign on.

    I thought we’re supposed to be neither right nor left, just green? It seems that’s what we like to say but then the vocal extreme left in the party (i’m generalising, not pointing) drowns that out — perhaps it’s time they had a party of their own (again).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  10. Yes, the messages are mixed, which I suspect is a reflection of the make-up of the party. The all-inclusive “being green” (meaning a far-left social agenda masquerading as environmentalism) message isn’t fooling many.

    I wonder what a party that placed the quality of our environment first could achieve? It would be such an easy message to sell to New Zealanders, as most kiwis take pride in our environment as a symbol of national identity. What people do not like is the social agenda. Why do you put it first?

    There’s SFA difference between National and Labour anyway.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  11. I wonder what a party that placed the quality of our environment first could achieve?

    They could get characterised as tree-hugging eco-fascists who like morris dancing, basket weaving and organic kumara more than increasing the well-being of the country…aaaaaand…’oh, wait’.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  12. Green parties all over the world have similar social consciences and agendas to our Green Party so no, dickelay, I see no merit in splitting the party.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  13. >>I thought we’re supposed to be neither right nor left, just green? It seems that’s what we like to say but then the vocal extreme left in the party (i’m generalising, not pointing) drowns that out — perhaps it’s time they had a party of their own (again).

    Yes, in many ways Greens did better when there was also an Alliance (left wing) party in Parliament. These days, with more telling environmental issues, I’m sure the green vote would increase if there was some other party that wore the ‘left of Labour’ mantle.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  14. My point was, BP, what would change? Or do you mean they would achieve more (legislatively) for their ‘priority’ that is the environment?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  15. There is no way Helen Clark would not bring Winston Peters into her Government if he gets a seat and she has the opportunity to form one. The last week has shown that there is some form of symbiosis between them that no ethic or other consideration can break.

    As many have already said here, the lasting impression the Green Party has created is that it is well left of Labour, and so incapable, philosophically, of entering into a coalition agreement with National, in the same way it is inconceivable that ACT would coalesce with Labour.

    What we have then in a simple 2 party election this time. The choices for the general role are:

    Green, Labour, Jim Anderton & New Zealand First or
    National & Act

    The Maori Party is really a Maori Role option, and would be best served to stay independent of a coalition if it wants its natural constituency to see it as something worthwhile. Peter Dunne may well hold his seat, but that’s no longer guaranteed (I live in it, so have a perspective) and he will flip his vote to the most likely to govern in the hope of retaining some influence over something somehow.

    So, we have Centre and Left, or Centre and Right options. The shame of it all is this brings it further towards a two party position than we have been in since the early 90s, and the two ‘camps’ would be better off holding merger talks to solidify the two options, through internal policy agreements, than continuing to subject the population to the “last past the post wins” scenario we have now.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  16. KJUV

    For there to be a true Green Party, its vision would have to be of a political compass rather than a continuum, with green at north, consumerism at south, socialism at east and conservatism at west. With that scenario you could have North east, North north east, North west or North north west governments with ease. Instead, the greenest the country can be in today’s world is LEFT, which is less and less acceptable to society at this point..

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  17. >>> Instead, the greenest the country can be in today’s world is LEFT, which is less and less acceptable to society at this point..

    In that case, Strings, shouldn’t the Greens just merge with the Labour party and try and make environmental policy and other green-friendly changes from within? Why pose as a separate party?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  18. KJUV
    That’s exactly what I meant when I said :the two ‘camps’ would be better off holding merger talks to solidify the two options, through internal policy agreements”. Jim Anderton’s Party will vanish when Jim decides to retire, but the Green and Labour Parties should negotiate and come to the 2011 election as a single entity. Even though I personally prefer the compass option, I don’t see it as viable as there are too many influential people in the Green Party who hold extreme left views and beliefs.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  19. Because of our default alignment with Labour, I have Nat work colleagues that throw around words like Commie at me — that’s how the Green Party is now perceived, far far left. I’m not a GP member because I’m a commie; I lean to the left, but I’m a GP member because I’m worried about our global and local environment — the same worry of many that lean to the right. Unfortunately, right leaners won’t vote for the Greens because we’re “Commies”. We should be perceived to be sitting between the two majors.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  20. Valis said:

    The Greens state a pref because they believe the voting public should know something about the kind of government we’d be most likely to support. The choice will be made based on policy and intended programme.

    That’s all well and very principled, Valis. But there is a glaring hole in that strategy. You don’t know how many people you’ve got to bargain with until after the election. That goes to negotiating strength. If you declare your hand before the election, then you’ve reduced your negotiation strength even further. On the contrary, if you demonstrate a willingness to negotiate in faith with both parties, then you increase your negotiating position.

    It would therefore be surprising if the pref was not Labour, since the reality is that they are closer to the Greens on many things. The Nats have good reason to want to be able to work with Greens as doing so would give them green cred in dealing with environmental issues.

    That’s true on both counts. It is more likely that Labour would make the policy concessions in a good-faith negotiation with the Greens, than National would. But Labour don’t have to make those policy concessions if the Greens virtually lock themselves into only negotiating with Labour.

    It is also correct that the National Party could see benefits in establishing green credentials. This raises another point. If the Greens really don’t care about the baubles of office, and are interested in influencing environmentally-friendly policies in New Zealand, shouldn’t the Greens be determined to influence any government, of any colour? Shouldn’t the spirit of cooperative and harmonious politics mean that the Greens should be determined to push its policies on both Labour and National?

    Turn your argument around. If the Greens are highly principled and care about environmental issues, what will happen, if as the polls say is likely, National and its closest allies are able to govern? What if National-Act-United are able to form a government on their own? Wouldn’t it make sense, if National wants to extend its Green credentials, and the Greens want to influence policy-making, for the two parties to sit down and nut out an agreement implement some Green policy?

    The Nats don’t seem even to understand and are often ideologically opposed to environmental issues – how on earth would such a relationship last?

    Who would have thought that the NZ First/Labour alliance would be more likely than the Greens and Labour? Politics makes interesting bedfellows. Besides, as I say above, shouldn’t the Greens make a genuine attempt to push environmental initiatives, particularly if National’s in a position to govern alone?

    It seems to me to make sense that you have a whole lot more influence if you’re part of the solution, rather than carping from the outside the whole time.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  21. Strings wrote: “For there to be a true Green Party, its vision would have to be of a political compass rather than a continuum, with green at north, consumerism at south, socialism at east and conservatism at west. With that scenario you could have North east, North north east, North west or North north west governments with ease.”

    This is the sort of fresh thinking that is required. Well done.

    I may be wrong, but I recall a FPP election where the Greens polled 24%? I think if they campaigned with this Compass approach, they could do they same again this election.

    Otherwise, by throwing their lot in with Labour, I regret they may be consigned to scraping past the 5% again. The mood is for change.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  22. Strings
    Good point – I also prefer that compass option.
    Mind you, I can recall that prior to the Values Party and even up until the early 1980′s many green thinking and green-living people just ‘opted out’ of politics with a brand of ‘leave unto Caesar mentality’. I guess that was partly due to their even then low regard for politicians coupled with a degree of falalism.
    Of course, these days, the environmental problems are more pronounced with corresponding louder calls for action. Unfortunately the opposition has become more insidious and very organised.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  23. I don’t buy the ‘green compass’ concept being put forward here. Green is not the opposite of consumerism, although greens have real problems with rampant consumerism. It’s a false dichotomy.

    Justice for the environment cannot be separated from social justice. Humans are not distinct from the environment, but an integral part of it. If that means You want to label me with a left label, so be it. Despite my regard for markets as the best mechanism for assessing financial risk. (They are crap at efficiency and resource allocation, as history has shown. No worse nor better than state entities, which are equally crap. Efficient outcomes are down to individuals and institutional cultures in both cases, IMHO.)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  24. >>Green is not the opposite of consumerism, although greens have real problems with rampant consumerism. It’s a false dichotomy.

    Hmm. It’s pretty good though: Perhaps we should say that Green politics can be thought of as opposing unsustainable consumerism (which is to many simply ‘consumerism’)
    Afterall by caraka’s view, can’t it be argued that (in politics) left is not the opposite of right because both left and right tend to abhor poverty? It is just that the left has more problems with abject poverty?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  25. I don’t think any party has a good model for the new reality (climate change and resource scarcity, over population). The Greens are hampered by an esoteric leap into social justice and cannot treat humans as the problem ,so, want to have their cake and eat it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  26. A lawyer was talking in the morning a day or two ago about offending. It costs $80,000 / year to keep people in prison so it is much better to intervene from (say) age 3 onwards. The thought occurred to me that sterilization of offenders would be cheaper still (but that would blame the individual> Sue Bradford says “blame the [capitalist]system”).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  27. Kjuv is right. I don’t think John Key is some right-wing psychopath who has waited his whole life to stick it to the poor, in punishment for his own childhood poverty.

    Middle NZ wants social justice. Middle NZ wants sustainabilty. The Greens need to move to the middle ground. I get the impression the Greens are trapped in a Left/Right paradigm.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  28. I find myself agreeing with so many of these posts. Why can’t the Green party see the opportunity staring them in the face? The environment should be at the centre of NZ politics and the Greens should at the centre of that.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  29. Interesting thought: Why is the Maori Party not being subjected to this left-right dichotomy in the way that the Greens are? It seems to have successfully disentangled itself from the ‘left’ label it once had.
    And another related thought: Where will the green supporters go if the party is unable to reach the 5% mark in the upcoming elections and have no representatives in the next parliament? It may go with Labour as previously indicated here. BUT it may have a better chance of getting its point across if it went with Maori :)
    And maybe National should not be dropped out of hand: For the liberals there are always the Katherine Rich’s and Marilyn Warings .. I sure it could also encompass a Jeanette and/or Rod

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  30. “Why is the Maori Party not being subjected to this left-right dichotomy in the way that the Greens are? ‘

    Cos no one has a bloody clue how ‘Maori-ness’ fits into the spectrum/compass! I know I don’t.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  31. >>Cos no one has a bloody clue how ‘Maori-ness’ fits into the spectrum/compass! I know I don’t.

    Ah! So that’s their advantage: It’s a pity we can’t say the same about ‘greeness’ then :) …. I’m sure we did once.. but the commentators had to place it on the left-right continuum – a sort of one-dimensional view of politics, really.:(

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  32. kjuv

    Good point, at one stage the Greens would have been seen in the same way as the Maori party and if that were still the case then the Greens would be looking at at least 12%-15%.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  33. at one stage the Greens would have been seen in the same way as the Maori party

    Aha! Maybe big bro can shed some light on the matter – how do you see the Maori party (in a left/right or authoritarian/liberal & socialist/free market way) then? I just don’t know – the other day Hone Harawira came out and said ‘no tax on the first $25,000 the other day, and I thought ‘aha! a supply side (right wing) economics guy!’, but turned out he was just going to make up the shortfall with a 700% increases in tobacco taxes or some such thing – I think he thought it up on the way to work that day or something.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  34. StephenR

    Thats the point!, the Maori party cannot be pigeoned holed in a left/right fashion.

    IMHO they should not even be in the house however until we as a nation decide that we do not want apartheid politics I guess they will stay for a few years yet.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  35. Hm, and a good point it is BB. I think it is to a small extent coloured by the fact that we know so little of their policies though – they have not created any Bills for us to argue over or had many if any of their policies debated in the media (Same applies to National and ACT, but they’ve been around a while), as opposed to the Greens.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  36. Off Topic

    Winston Peters has just announced the death of Brian Donnelly in the house.

    R.I.P

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  37. We could consider the Maori Party an experiment for the Greens to observe if they do go with the Nats as expected. As their membership overwhelmingly leans Labour (one could argue even more so than Green supporters, given their history) it will be very interesting to see if they survive in their current form. Personally, while there’s no doubt that they are fiercely independent, I think their claim to be able to support either side is mostly due to Tariana’s great desire to go with the Nats because she hates Helen. I don’t think her view is held by the majority of the party, but we shall see.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  38. IMHO The Maori Party have to represent all points of the compass FOR THE MAORI PEOPLE, as they should do given their focus. I agree that apartheid politics should have no place in New Zealand, but they are here and must be dealt with, the existence of a Party to undertake the political fight for Maori people is the natural evolution of that apartheid.

    Go North good people.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  39. “Winston Peters has just announced the death of Brian Donnelly in the house”.

    Brian was my school principal back in the early 80′s. Taught us white boys to play rugby like league. A great guy and a huge Bob Dylan fan.

    My deepest sympathies to Linda and family.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  40. timellis,

    “That’s true on both counts. It is more likely that Labour would make the policy concessions in a good-faith negotiation with the Greens, than National would. But Labour don’t have to make those policy concessions if the Greens virtually lock themselves into only negotiating with Labour.”

    Not if we have the numbers they need. I assume your talking here about a coalition agreement.

    “This raises another point. If the Greens really don’t care about the baubles of office, and are interested in influencing environmentally-friendly policies in New Zealand, shouldn’t the Greens be determined to influence any government, of any colour? Shouldn’t the spirit of cooperative and harmonious politics mean that the Greens should be determined to push its policies on both Labour and National?”

    We’d say we are, but at what cost? Do we enable the Nats to govern no matter what they’d do in other policy areas? And you’re assuming they’d deliver on the environment, which we have plenty of reason to doubt. We get heaps of grief for working with Labour and we aren’t even keeping them in power. Why is it suddenly ok to sell our soles for power with the Nats?

    “What if National-Act-United are able to form a government on their own? Wouldn’t it make sense, if National wants to extend its Green credentials, and the Greens want to influence policy-making, for the two parties to sit down and nut out an agreement implement some Green policy?”

    My expectation is that this would be entirely possible.

    “It seems to me to make sense that you have a whole lot more influence if you’re part of the solution, rather than carping from the outside the whole time.”

    Agreed, but its a two way street.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  41. >>A great guy and a huge Bob Dylan fan.

    Bob Dylan has written many inspiring ditties: One of my favourites that I am sure is applicable to most of us in these uncertain times hails from his ‘Ballad of a Thin Man’: viz: ‘Something is happening and you don’t know what it is, do you Mr Jones?’

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  42. Valis said:

    Personally, while there’s no doubt that they are fiercely independent, I think their claim to be able to support either side is mostly due to Tariana’s great desire to go with the Nats because she hates Helen. I don’t think her view is held by the majority of the party, but we shall see.

    I think Helen Clark labelling the Maori Party as the “last cab off the rank” will haunt Labour. The Maori Party MPs place a lot of emphasis on treating each other, and other parties, with respect and acting in good faith. They were genuinely offended by Labour disrespecting them–from Tariana’s treatment by the Labour Party that led to her leaving Labour in the first place, to Labour patronising them. Labour has always treated the Maori Party (and to the same extent, the Green Party) with a sense of entitlement. They’ve always assumed that the Maori Party should agree to everything Labour does, rather than sit down and negotiate on the basis of trust.

    Ironically, despite the Maori Party being the much newer kid on the block, they have demonstrated how MMP should function. They have a constituency with specific interests: to advance the cause of Maoridom. Yes they have voted predominantly with Labour, but they’ve shown that they have a backbone and won’t be bullied or have their votes taken for granted, and genuinely vote on principle.

    The Maori Party are pragmatists. They have a very clear test that they apply to policy initiatives. I understand there’s about ten criteria, but the overarching criteria are: “Does this policy improve or diminish Maori?” If it fails that test, they won’t support it.

    The Maori Party does not sit well within a confrontational political environment, because they operate on genuine respect for others. It’s also a mistake to take their votes for granted. We saw that in the Privileges Committee. Winston Peters misconstrued the Maori Party’s genuine concern for his feeling of being hurt and support for him personally, as an indication that the Maori Party would ignore the evidence in the Privileges Committee. For some reason both Labour and NZ First had a sense of entitlement; that they could abuse the Maori Party’s compassion and respect by blackmailing them into throwing aside parliamentary procedure and what the Privileges Commitee was set up to do.

    The Maori Party, again, felt genuinely hurt that Winston lashed out at them after they had expressed support for him as a person. That has done real damage to the sense of trust that the Maori Party have towards the Labour Party and NZ First, because the Labour Party were in on the act as well.

    Could the Greens operate in a similar way? I believe they could. Green MPs are mature, don’t on the whole engage in petty politics, have high principles, eschew political baubles for the baubles’ sake, and a long-term view of what they want to achieve. If the Greens were able to develop policy tests as robust as the Maori Party, along the lines of: “Does this policy improve or diminish our environment?”, then I can’t see why they can’t work with any party in government.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  43. “If the Greens were able to develop policy tests as robust as the Maori Party, along the lines of: “Does this policy improve or diminish our environment??, then I can’t see why they can’t work with any party in government.”

    This really is a bit condescending, timellis. The Greens do this already. We have a charter that states four basic principles that all decisions must embody. There is also a published strategy, long-term goals, success criteria, all of which is public. You may not agree that we should be a holistic party and instead just concentrate on the environment, but that doesn’t mean we don’t operate in the way you describe.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  44. Valis
    I think the point that Tim is making is that the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand SHOULD NOT be an holistic party, in the same way that the Maori Party really isn’t.

    By demanding an holistic stand you end up maintaining the continuum philosophy, and trying to establish a unique position on that continuum . The position you have been ‘categorised’ in by society is ‘left of the Labour Party”, which means you are alienating the basic environmental position of the global green movement from the rest of the left/right continuum.

    The Green Party needs to re-establish what it stands for, and if radical socialism with an environmental conscience is the reality for a substantial number, and environmental recovery and sustainability with social responsibility the reality for the rest, then perhaps two parties is the better way to go.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  45. What’s condescending about that? ‘Care for the Earth’ and ‘Care for the people” are the two principles on the front page of the Green website. Every party claims to care for the people, but as JH said further up, ‘people are the problem’. Campaign on ‘Care for the Earth’, ditch the rest, undertake to work with Nat or Lab, and watch your vote and influence grow.
    It’s simple really, if you snuggle under Helen’s smelly armpit, then I might as well vote for Labour or National. That way I can punish the Green leadership for wasting the best opportunity they have ever had to raise the environment into the centre of NZ’s political landscape instead of being a pretty picture over on the (left) horizon.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  46. Valis Says:

    The Greens do this already. We have a charter that states four basic principles that all decisions must embody.
    ………
    But interpretation of the Charter comes down to opinion where what is “just” becomes murky and the greens seem to be excessively populated by people commited to left-wing causes. The result is a perceived knee jerk reaction by the left foot.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  47. I’m all for a new world order but that doesn’t mean we can avoid hard decisions and be blind to welfare becoming a lifetime job or child bearing becoming a state sector job with a house supplied (if it is the case – and I’m not convinced the Greens are objective).
    Or that NZ needs to be returned to the 1840 situation where tino rangitiratanga sits along side kawangatanga, but that is what the thinkers in the green Party want.
    What the public want to see is objectivity not a knee jerk from the left foot. It’s a bad look to see people dominating the Green Party who could easily have stepped out of a john Minto type organisation, but that’s where you stand.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  48. Another poll out today showing the Greens struggling to reach 5%.

    Wake up and smell the unsustainable coffee, Greens. The Clark/Fitzsimmons era is over. A next era could be Key/Norman, but a whole bunch of the party are going to have to embrace change.

    Yes, CHANGE. The one thing the Greens have always asked NZers to do is change. Change our thinking, change our unsustainable habits, embrace change to make a difference.

    But when it comes to this election, Change is the last thing the Greens seem to be able to do.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  49. Nightmare Scenarios for the Greens.

    1. NZF somehow gets the 5% mark and, with the support of the Greens, Labour scrapes together the numbers. Helen retires and Cullen takes the helm. Winston keeps his misisterial post. Greens are punished for being unfaithful at the Privileges Committee and are relegated to junior-junior partner.

    2. Greens announce before the election they will support Labour. They grossly mis-read the mood for change, and fail to reach the 5% mark. The Green voice disappears into oblivion.

    3. Greens reach the 5% mark, but National/Act/Maori get enough votes to form government. Greens get to watch from the benches as Nat/Act/Maori take the scissors to the Emmissions Trading Scheme to suit their interests.

    Maybe I am wrong, and I hope I am, but it looks like one of these will become the fate of the Greens. I am already lamenting the opportinity that is being lost.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  50. There are a lot of people out their who haven’t benefited from the changes of the last 20 years (sale of camp grounds, lament over the city plan, infill housing etc) who are asking “why?” and who find no support from anyone but Saint Winston (and they don’t care who said what to Owen Glen as all the other parties are dishonest in their own little and not so little ways). The Greens are dishonest for claiming to be green when it is understood that the left is red. :wink:
    :mrgreen:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>