by frog
Colin James previews the Green Party Annual Conference at Auckland University this weekend by comparing the Greens to Paris’ 1968 student revolution. In doing so James tries to date the Green Party as a movement that has been left behind as other parties moved on with the times.
(For example he falsely attributes the Greens as criticising John Key for his Springbok Tour stance 27 years ago. Let’s be clear that’s another party’s hang-up; as far as I know the Greens have not commented on John Key’s memory in relation to the Springbok Tour, and are quite happy to judge him on his current policy and practice rather than the young man he was 27 years ago.)
I think the problem with James’ analysis is that it misses the fact that in 1968 the green (small ‘g’, as the Green Party was still 22 years from existence) policy and philosophy was well ahead of its time. Just because the greens of 1968 were talking about peak oil and a nascent awareness of humanity’s impact on the global climate does not make the same messages dated in 2008. It just shows that after 4 decades of missed opportunities the mission is even more urgent.
James suggests the Greens have failed to follow the path of the Labour Party by moving from the margins to the mainstream. The reality is that the Greens cannot afford to move from the position science dictates they must take on the well-being of the planet. They cannot change scientific reality of climate change and peak oil to suit their political ambition. The real question James needs to ask is which parties are really still stuck in 1968?
Published in Campaign | Environment & Resource Management | Media | Society & Culture by frog on Tue, May 27th, 2008
Tags: , 1968, climate change, Colin James, john key, labour party, Paris student revolution, peak oil, springbok tour
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
He doesn’t attribute the Greens as ‘scoffing at Key”:
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You’ve left out the earlier para in your quote.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
gee frog..!
i thought the question james is asking is ..
..why are the greens not able to lift their level of support..?
..when it is so obviously ‘their time’..?
maybe the green party should focus/work on just that one subject/question at their upcoming conference..?
as surely..this is the ‘big’ question/issue facing the green party..
..how/why nobody is looking to you for solutions..
..why mainstream concern for/on environmental issues..
..is not transferring through into electoral/polling support for the green party..?
(surely that is what you must be discussing/arguing….!
or will this conference..follow the template of others..
..and be so ‘locked-down/controlled/’delahuntyied’..
..so to quell such ‘dissident’/questioning voices/questions.?
(somehow..i’m picking it’ll be the latter..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
and shouldn’t the headline be..”..stuck in the last millennium’..?
..wasn’t that when the green party leadership/’inner-circle’ decided that being labours b*tch..(to be ‘used and abused’)..was ‘the way to go’..?
(..and they have been ‘trapped’ there ever since..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
and can anyone answer this question..
http://whoar.co.nz/2008/can-anyone-explain-why-sole-parent-benificiaries-are-treated-as-pariahs/
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
@ StephenR
That para, read in context of the article, has James implying that the Greens have scoffed at Keys. Patently untrue.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
philu a recent poll showed that a majority of polynesians and young voters didn’t even know it was an election year. the greens can’t lift their support because people are ignorant bums basically
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
really ..!..andrew..!
um..!..you wouldn’t be part of that green ‘inner-circle’..?..
by any chance..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes many voters are ignorant. And many of the rest can’t see the (green) forest for the (red pine and blue gum) trees. Another problem the Greens have is that they are perceived as self righteous. The motto “some things are bigger than politics” will be misinterprited (by some) as ‘the Greens think that they are bigger than politics’. Winston first knows how to get votes… 10% GST… his job is now safe. And he doesn’t even have to follow through ’cause at best he’ll only be in coallition.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
are the greens ‘doing a national’..?
..keeping their policies ‘hidden from view’..?
if so ..why..?
fear of others ‘stealing’ your ‘good ideas/solutions’..?
don’t you think the need to be seen to be doing/offering something…?
(not to mention the over-weening’ urgencies’ we face..)
..and not to mention your poll-rut..eh..?..)
don’t these imperatives over-ride your ‘fear’ of having policies/’good ideas’..
..stolen..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“andrew..!
um..!..you wouldn’t be part of that green ‘inner-circle’..?”
no
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil
Even you can do better than that. What stops you from finding this page ?
http://www.greens.org.nz/docs/policy/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
@ Phil
Even you can do better than that. What stops you from finding this page ?
http://www.greens.org.nz/docs/policy
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog, stop eating my comments !
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Fastbike, stop disguising them as spam!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
all those eh?s and …s everywhere. learn how to type/speak coherently and people might treat you as less of a pariah eh?..
…typing like you are.. .. mental.. doesn’t eh? help your credibility much eh?
it’s just your…. .s.ty.le.. I suppose..
but it just makes everything you type seem…. retarded.
eh?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I see Banardo’s are suffering from lack of support too
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Jim suggests the Greens have failed to follow the path of the Labour Party by moving from the margins to the mainstream. The reality is that the Greens cannot afford to move from the position science dictates they must take on the well-being of the planet.”
…………………….
Dear, dear frog don’t you pay attention: the caring for the environment is a vote getter. It’s the other stuff that looses votes. Lets not pretend: extremists have defined the issues and no one’s interested.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
ok fastbike..
you give us your theory as to why the greens are in their poll-rut..?
and fastbike..why aren’t they out there ‘selling’ their policies/ideas..?
nothing to worry about there then..?..just ‘carry on as before’..?..eh.?
(there there..!..mommopilot..try some rescue remedy..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
something about the greens…. arent they bad… eh?
i like to talk about my blog… great …eh?
the greens hate me ….eh? (possibly derogatory comment about commenter…hahaha…)
(and if you complain about me, then you’re just uptight… )
whoar!
Frog, I actually HATE reading that shit, and have to skip past it every time, which infuriates me. Every other contributer here adds things to the debate. He’s welcome to spew his jumble of punctuation on his own blog, but he’s outstayed himself here, in my (possibly not so) humble opinion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh, I assume your definition of “extremists” includes Sue Bradford. But the full membership of the Green Party just voted once again to put Sue at #3 on the list and it’s these same people that determine the Party’s programme, including the huge focus on environmentalism. They see that these goals are complementary and green parties the world over agree. This cannot be rejected out of hand for reasons of electoral convenience. You need to think about why there is such a huge concensus on this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil – unfortunately (although most of us have used it in moderation), it seems that Cannabis sativa left you stuck in 1968.
That “rescue remedy” is not a long-term remedy Phil. Heavy usage tends to induce paranoia, which is why I gave it it up. It should be a recreational drug only, not a means of coping every day.
There are enough scary things going on re peak oil, climate change, the consequentially increasing fuel and food prices, and the shafting of the costs of all of these onto the people least able to cope, without constant chemically induced paranoia to enhance the perception of that reality.
For me anyway! Perhaps Phil can cope, as his posts may demonstrate. Leave it to readers’ judgment!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# Valis Says:
May 27th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
jh, I assume your definition of “extremists? includes Sue Bradford. But the full membership of the Green Party just voted once again to put Sue at #3 on the list and it’s these same people that determine the Party’s programme, including the huge focus on environmentalism. They see that these goals are complementary and green parties the world over agree. This cannot be rejected out of hand for reasons of electoral convenience. You need to think about why there is such a huge concensus on this.
………….
The “huge” consensus is within the Green Party and could be explained by stacking and that would explain the not so huge support (and lack of growth in membership). The Green Charter is too general to act as a way forward. People need examples and i would suggests that people don’t like what they see so far.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh, the consensus within the Green Party is all I was talking about and it is real, so there is no need to posit a conspiracy. Obviously, people who disagree don’t join, but the membership is growing not a current worry.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It’s pretty high relative to the membership of the larger parties too, from what I recall.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I resent that remark. Or rather : I resemble that remark. Frankly I dislike being categorised as “not much under 50″. Especially since I’m only… 47.
Other than that, I can’t find much to disagree with in James’s ramble. The guts of it :
I have never believed that the Greens would become a “mainstream” party, precisely because each time we start drawing “too much” support, the others will copy us. I think we just have to grin and bear it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
wether policy becomes implemented (regardless of who steels it or impliments it) and wether the greens ideas are successful and relevent is more important.
in saying that, i dont see why the greens cant rise above the 5.6.7% mark.
in the end they need to not compromise beliefs and values, and have solid policy. then it comes down to effective campaigning.
i would say working on having a more active membership would be great (no offensive to those that do heaps of great work)
ps PHIL – why dont you go join the national party???
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I have never believed that the Greens would become a “mainstream? party, precisely because each time we start drawing “too much? support, the others will copy us. I think we just have to grin and bear it.
………………………………
And because as membership grows the diversity of views will grow and all the parties policies will get greater attention (such as a commitment to a system which divides Aotearoa into a series of tribal cantons).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh refers of course to that inconvenient bit of paper, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, that so many are afraid of. It doesn’t require tribal cantons to give it effect, but that’s a useful way to scare Pakeha isn’t it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What is your understanding of Tino Rangitiratanga in 1840?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
classic..!
ignore the messages/questions..(poll-rut..?..remember..?..)
and have a go at me/discount the (widely-held) concerns i air..
cos’ i smoke pot..
as i said..
‘classic’..!
(do you also stick your fingers in your ears and go…”lalalal..!..i’m not listening!”)
fools..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“..ps PHIL – why dont you go join the national party???..”
classic..!..
part two..
‘fool!’
part two..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
and darroch..
..your so-so-pale imitation is redolent of the results attained when giving a monkey a typewriter to play with….
aren’t you quite the silly little man..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
frogblog flame war!!
I thought he did a pretty good job
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Drain the Frog Pond and you find what: Trotskyites and/ or some species not many people are familiar with. A bit like a church where only the main bunch are allowed to read the holy book?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh (and many othersl)
It is interesting to read your comments on a thread like this one, and realize that although you spend considerable time on this blog, you appear to learn very little about who the Greens are and how (and why) we operate.
I’m an old bird now! I joined the Values Party when I returned to Aotearoa NZ in 1968 having spent several years in other parts of the World, and having seen what so called Homo sapiens was doing to this Planet.
The green message was already obvious to those who really opened their eyes, and that message has become louder and more urgent with every passing year. Many of the detractors here have begun to hear it, but they seem to want the Greens to “do something” without their needing to change their comfortable and ambitiously acquisitive lifestyles … wanting to keep their cake but wanting to eat it too …
Stop using the old labels! They were coined as descriptors of the social divisions of humans within national groups, on a (then) supposedly infinite planet.
The Greens have ALWAYS looked beyond our society and recognised that the Planet must support whole ecosystems and miriads of species (including self named “Homo sapiens” which is only one of the many).
We have to share!
This is a very different perspective.
All the above is to illustrate that if you look more carefully, you will find that Green behaviour is not “red” nor “blue”, it is consistently “green” … or in this case “Green”. The fact that “Red” and “Blue” recognize similarities in some of our policies, shows (unsurprisingly) that we do have some ideas in common and we can work together.
That is the true strength of our MMP system.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Woops!
… I joined Values when it started in 1972!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
eredwen
“It is interesting to read your comments on a thread like this one, and realize that although you spend considerable time on this blog, you appear to learn very little about who the Greens are and how (and why) we operate.”
Incorrect, over the last two years or so I (obviously I cannot speak for anybody else) have learnt a great deal about the Green party.
I used to think that the Green were a party that was concerned about clean rivers and lakes, I even voted for you on that basis.
Initially I was pleasantly surprised to see that you were supposedly interested in animal welfare however that seems to have slipped down the list somewhat.
However eredwen it has become abundantly clear to me over the last two years that the Greens have moved away from what I would consider to be Green issues and now seem more concerned about pushing the hard left socialist barrow.
Labels are appropriate in todays political battlefield, I can understand why you may not like them as it highlights to the voting public just where the Greens draw their inspiration from however thankfully you do not get to frame the debate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
please post my comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hmm…it seems that one has to go to Kiwiblog to be able to freely debate issue with Green party members these days.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
and eredwen..about that ‘poll-rut’..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sorry Eredwen but…….
“The green message was already obvious to those who really opened their eyes, and that message has become louder and more urgent with every passing year”
…….
Is this the green message as in Sierra Club and peak oil newsgroups or is this the “we’re a left-wing party” Green Party. A party which claims that ecological wisdom is the natural partner of any of the old left-wing causes which were popular when environmentalism wasn’t?
“Stop using the old labels! They were coined as descriptors of the social divisions of humans within national groups, on a (then) supposedly infinite planet.”
Yes but the Greens would have us living under Tino Rangitirataga and as second class citizens (ad infinitum) because only people with Maori ancestry are tangata whenua.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“second class citizens”
right.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sorry guys, but I find it pointless to comment further on your comments.
My original post does just that.
… except to say to jh: I have never felt diminished because I am Pakeha (and there is no “ad infinitum” about it). Anyone who feels “diminished” should remedy the situation by making sure that they or their kids find partners of Maori descent and then their descendants will inherit what you seem to believe you are entitled to! (joke)
As one who seems to believe in the private ownership of land/property, why be upset when Tangata Whenua are asking for the return of what was demonstrably TAKEN from them?
(As a South Islander, I believe that our local Iwi, Kai Tahu have been very patient and moderate in their requests. Their (long sought after and prepared for) Treaty Settlements have been good for the community as a whole.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
big bro
You really can be a pompous and endlessly repetitive bore!
I do encourage you to spend ALL your spare time in kiwiblog!
(How very unGreen of me to say so, but I just couldn’t resist!)
e
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)