by frog
Christchurch’s Ken Graham gets a good write up in this morning’s Herald as a potential new Green MP. The article discusses his involvement in developing the intellectual framework behind New Zealand’s nuclear free policy in the 1980s:
“I wrote an article that Carl Sagan picked up, basically saying it was a misperception that our nuclear policy was on cloud nine. It was a rational take on nuclear deterrence. You could show that New Zealand’s security was diminished, not enhanced, by nuclear weapons…
His enthusiasm for the nuclear cause would not have been welcome in Foreign Affairs at the time. “It was a minority view but I was not totally alone. And it was embraced by the Cabinet.”
It’s also interesting to read the systematic way he picked the Greens as the party that best represented his political views:
His choice of party was careful. “I hadn’t had a personal association with Greens in New Zealand though I had with European Greens. I studied the party here and decided this was the one for me.”
It’s my perception this year that there are a number of people who have taken a similar careful route to the Green Party – arguing in favour of core Green philosophies like peace and disarmament, sustainability or social justice for many years but only recently applying a political party label to those beliefs.
Photo Credit: NZ Herald
Published in Campaign | Justice & Democracy | Society & Culture by frog on Thu, October 30th, 2008
Tags: , frogblog, green party, Kennedy Graham, nuclear disarmament, nuclear free
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Is Kennedy Graham a bit of a “blue green”? From the Herald article (and other coverage) it seems likely Graham is likely to be one of the more conservative/rightish forces within the post-election Green caucus. He certainly seems to put a strong emphasis on the fact that the Greens aren’t anti-National Party and that perhaps the Greens and National can still work together. So it’d be very interesting to see how Bradford and Graham get along!
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well, it does run in his family. But looking at the whole quote:
——
He insists, however, that the decision to prefer Labour has been misinterpreted.
“What we say is that Labour is our preferred partner.
“However, on the basis of the analysis it might not be possible to form a partnership with either, and instead work on a policy-by-policy basis with anyone, including National, for gains on our platform.
“We are not tooth and claw against National.”
——
Nothing there that isn’t the party line. I think he was commenting on the media tendency to ignore that the Greens could decide not to support Labour either and also stating again that if they were outside govt for whatever reason, they’d want to work with National where possible.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hi Bryce
Ken and Sue get along fine together. You obviously know neither.
BTW, it’s a sign you haven’t done your homework calling Ken a blue green. Ken has integrity, people like Nick Smith don’t.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hi fastbike. I wasn’t very clear in my reference to Bradford and Graham. I wasn’t referring to how they get along *personally*, but *politically*. Bradford is staunchly anti-National and obviously would never have put up with the Greens negotiating with National post-election, yet Graham is somewhat milder towards National (for all sorts of reasons) which is why he stresses in interviews that the Greens aren’t anti-National. I’m not suggesting that he’s a member of the Nat’s Blue Green organisation, but that his political philosophy is generally a bit more blue-green than it is red-green. This isn’t to challenge his integrity, but just to ask about his left-right politics. And, no, I don’t know either Bradford or Graham, but I do follow their political activities very closely.
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I do know them both personally Bryce. They both agree with the positioning that the Greens have taken for this election – that while the Greens will not support National to form a government, we will work with them if they do form a Government on a issue by issue basis on isues where there is sufficient common ground in policy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sue Bradford would surely have resigned from the Greens if the party continued to actively consider the Nats as a coalition partner and gone with Norman’s idea of having post-election negotiations with National. Whereas Kennedy Graham has been fairly clear that he’d be OK with considering a coalition deal with National. The two represent two different ends of the spectrum on this issue and on the general left-right scale in the Green Party. Graham isn’t exactly another Ian Ewen-Street, but he’s still somewhat more Tory-inclined than Bradford. But, yes, both Graham and Bradford will be happy to go along with the new party line publicly, it’s just that Graham will obviously keep emphasizing that the Greens can play a strong role in working with National, whereas Bradford still has enough residual leftwing politics to stop her stressing this.
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Interesting point Bryce. It’s easy to forget that there tend to be ‘factions’ within parties – not necessarily opposed, but still…more ammo for your ‘Greens moving to the centre’ meme(?) eh?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes – the Green Party is actually incredibly factionalised – but the factionalisation is one of relative harmony. I’ll post on this at a later date, but in general the Green caucus is actually quite politically diverse, which means that the MPs all have their own pet causes, politics and projects. Like a “market researchers dream”, this allows the party to appeal to a number of different “market segments”. This has mostly been a source of strength for the party.
But obviously also means that they’re some unresolved political contradictions beneath the surface which so far have been able to be voluntarily suppressed, but might not remain so, especially if the party subjects itself to the strong pressures of being in a coalition government.
Also, it’s a source of weakness for the Greens because it blunts focus of the party. With a cornucopia of ideological ideas and goals, the party has not easily been able to project “what it stands for” anymore, which is why for most of the last three years it’s struggled to stay above the 5% threshold in opinion polls at a the very time when environmental ideas are on the public agenda. With the degeneration of the third-term Labour Government, and the public desire for change, the Greens should be creaming it this election. Never before has the opportunity arose for the party to get 15-20% support (as the Alliance regularly used to), but the Greens are pretty much blowing the opportunity. Even a 10% party vote for the Greens this year would be a relative failure. And that would be despite their reliance on “celebrity politics”, their shift towards the populist centre, and their vacuous advertising campaign.
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Even a 10% party vote for the Greens this year would be a relative failure.”
your comment greatly simplifies things. the party has very clearly stated “what it stands for” though it often has words put into its mouth by other parties and the media-blogo-talkback conspiracy. these factors are the most damaging thing to the green prospects: a lot of people’s only knowledge of green policy comes in a massively distorted form from other sources.
green voters, while disparate in their politics in some areas, have the advantage of a party structure which allows for democratic processes in formulating policy and deciding on candidates which means that at least their views are included in their party’s decisions. National don’t even seem to include their own spokespeople in their policy decisions.
the greens are doing a great job of bringing what have long been considered marginal concerns to the mainstream despite concerted efforts to misrepresent them. it would be a pessimistic view to see 10% as a failure.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bryce Says:
October 31st, 2008 at 11:27 am
Sue Bradford would surely have resigned from the Greens if the party continued to actively consider the Nats as a coalition partner and gone with Norman’s idea of having post-election negotiations with National.
………………..
I see a danger if the Greens get too big in that members might give some of the more staunch individuals the heave- ho.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I don’t know where Bryce gets his information, but I assure you at no time were the Greens actively considering coalition with the Nats.
“I see a danger if the Greens get too big in that members might give some of the more staunch individuals the heave- ho.”
Very wishful thinking on your part.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)