Mike, Russel and Nandor
I haven’t written about Mike, Russel and Nandor’s dance around that one chair in the debating chamber yet, and that’s partly because I’ve got a lot of respect for all three men.
Obviously Nandor wants to move on and that’s a shame because he brings such an incredibly strong set of skills to the Green Party caucus and is very influential in parliament. Nonetheless, after eight and a half years here his decision is a considered one and everyone’s reaction is to tautoko that choice.
Mike’s most enduring influence on the Green Party is his powerful ability to communicate that choosing a green way of living, a green economy or a green community is not a burden but a fun, vibrant and sane way to live. In an election year that message is vital to the party’s success. The Waste Minimisation Bill that both he and Nandor have played a central role in shepherding through parliament is an example of this positive green vision.
But in the end Russel coming into Parliament will bring the Greens a whole a new range of opportunities to build their caucus strength and talk about core Green issues like a healthy climate, healthy food and clean water on the public stage that is Parliament. He will be in a much stronger position to lead the party forward in the months before the election. It’s not about travel expenses or secretarial support. No matter which of the three sits in parliament the Greens would have had access to the same amount of parliamentary resources and money.
As Vernon Small notes this morning:
Mr Ward’s belated decision to bow out in favour of Dr Norman is an important boost for the party. As a co-leader outside parliament he was neither pen-raised fish or free-range fowl.
June 5th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Seems odd that we even have a list for the public to vote on then, if it can just be shuffled around for purposes of convenience.
June 5th, 2008 at 10:27 am
‘to vote on’ - at the time of the general election, not the member-only voting that goes on.
June 5th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Where is your mandate for this cynical manipulation of our electoral system ?
June 5th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Section 137 of the Electoral Act 1993, BB:
June 5th, 2008 at 10:58 am
This is good news. Well done Russel, I am glad Mike came to his senses. This is a difficult situation for all involved, as it has only eventuated because of Rod’s death. It is, of course, not the most desirable situation, but it is hardly cynical. I would say a better example of manipulation is Mike Ward moving from 30 something to 14 on the two versions of the list. Sounds like some band of loyalists think they have more democracy than others and know how to manipulate the STV system. Or maybe I am the one being cynical on that one.
Though, Catherine Delahunty would have been a total asset in the house, I hope she makes it in at the next election.
June 5th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Hiding behind the strict letter of the law then are you Toad?
What a pity that you did not see things that way when it came to the 2005 election overspend.
Hypocrisy…. thy name is Green.
June 5th, 2008 at 11:10 am
The Greens did BB.
They were among the first to pay the money back after the Auditor-General made his determination - even though there was no legal obligation to do so.
That was an honest mistake in interpretation of the rules that was made by most political parties. The Greens paid theirs back that long before National sorted out its GST debacle with their broadcasting funding. And have NZ First paid back their overspend yet? Haven’t quite kept up with that one.
June 5th, 2008 at 11:38 am
“Obviously Nandor wants to move on”…………………He didn’t join the Alliance Party as his parents came to Aotearoa to escape communism.
June 5th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
It is simply laughable to accuse the Greens of cynical list manipulation. For that to be true, one would have to show an overriding public interest that the list as party members ranked at the last election was sacrosanct in every detail and that those who voted Green were somehow being short changed now. I’m somehow sure that bb is not terribly concerned about Green voters being robbed of appropriate representation, so this is just another one of his straw men.
Let us not forget that this has occurred only because of the death of Rod Donald, which then elevated Russel into the co-leadership. If the Greens had slavishly adhered to their list, I can just see the comments from bb and others who’d rightfully be criticising their political naivety.
June 5th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
This is a sad week for those of us that are fighting to retain the MMP electoral system. The Greens’ manipulation of this issue - regardless of whether it’s justifiable or not - will tarnish MMP for many people and is handing MMP’s opponents a great stick to whack us with. Thanks guys. I guess you think that the tradeoff of obtaining the use of taxpayer funds for Russel Norman’s electioneering makes this all worthwhile….
Bryce
June 5th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
StephenR: When I vote for a party’s list, I’m voting to support that party as a whole and I’m endorsing the list candidates they have put up. But underneath that is my desire to see myself represented most effectively by the party of my choice.
Rod Donald died. His successor as male coleader, Russel Norman, was democratically chosen by party members. He was among those high on the 2005 list endorsed by Green voters.
Nandor’s decision to step down now enables a Green from the list, who is available, to take his place in the House. The next available person is Russel Norman.
I’d be surprised if Green supporters did NOT agree this will allow Green voters to be more effectively represented going forward. How could any Green be upset about this?
Allowing a minor (perceptual - not legal) ‘rigidity’ like the list ranking to take precedence over the big picture - effective representation - makes NO sense. Russel Norman was both the first available candidate AND party co-leader.
That’s a two-fer. Well done, Greens.
It’s worth nothing that the mainly National Party people slagging the Greens don’t have any opportunity to elect their leaders or rank their list.
Maye they should focus on more and better democracy within their own party. Maybe someone will even let them know what their policies are.
June 5th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Bryce: People who understand MMP won’t have any issues with this. The noise is coming form the right wing echo chamber…and that includes the DomPost.
They can’t attack the Greens on the issues….so they’re painting Greens as anti-democratic.
Never mind the party they support is a “reluctant presence” when faced with democracy internally and externally.
June 5th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
big bro: Hypocrisy is very much blue. National party members can’t elect their leaders, or select and rank their candidates nationally. Greens can do all of these things.
Greens understand that the party vote applies to the whole list. Many National Party people, judging from what they say, STILL don’t understand what those list candidates are……
Perhaps that’s because in the National Party, ordinary members have no say over the list. It’s as though the party leadership want to keep them in the dark about what COULD be done democratically within the party….in much the same way National Party members (and most MPs) aren’t allowed to know their party’s policies.
Hypocrisy? It’s blue in 2008.
June 5th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
you assume he’s a nat…
June 5th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
or worse…
June 5th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
This is fantastic news. Let the right wing bloggers throw mud, but anyone who cares about looking after this planet and the people on it should be pretty happy. I can’t wait to see Russel in the House - he is going to kick ass.
tonyt
June 5th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Just whose “ass” is Comrade Norman going to kick tonyt?
June 5th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Apparently the ass of people who ignore the fact that their shallow right-wing manipulations of fact have been rightly dismissed, BB
Thankyou for maintaining respect for all those involved frog. I hope this is the best thing for the Party.
June 5th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Really Ari?
Lets wait and see who how long your smug arrogance lasts come November.
Thankfully Comrade Norman and co will be looking for a job.
June 5th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
big bro: You have a particular comment style. It isn’t serving you well.
June 5th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Actually, the other person who deserves respect from this process is Catherine Delahunty. Catherine is ambitious to be an MP and she will make a great one. She has narrowly missed out two elections in a row and now this. Her maiden speech is going to rock the house. She’s very quietly stayed behind the scenes during this whole issue, when really her skills and vivacity deserve all the publicity in the world.
June 5th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Good on Mike Ward.
He had the right to take the next place if it became vacant if he wanted it. He has chosen to do the best thing for his party, at some sacrifice to himself.
Those alleging “cynical list manipulation” are simply missing the point: Mike’s chosen not to take up his place, as he’s entitled to.
Good on him.
June 5th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Well done guys. This is real democracy in action.
Nandor did not willingly go back to Parliament, but served for 2 & 1/2 years to get Mike’s Waste Bill through the house. Now that it’s Mission Accomplished he has decided to move on.
Mike has little chance of being in the house after the next election (at 14 on the list the Greens would need 12% to get Mike elected). I’d say he’s decided he doesn’t want the disruption of an MP’s life for 3 months. Fair call.
Green voters from 2005 would understandably want both Co Leaders in Parliament. Given that the Co Leader of 2005, Ronald Donald RIP, is not around to take that role it is entirely reasonable to expect Russel to take the MMP seat.
This solution keeps everyone happy, except the right wingers who do not like democracy. If they did, they’d get over it, real quick.
June 5th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Frog
“Catherine is ambitious to be an MP”
Yeah, so ambitious that she “stood aside” when she had the chance.
I had to laugh at your comment about Delahunty “Her maiden speech is going to rock the house”, why on earth would you think that?
From what I can see Delahunty is a self confessed bigot and sexist, she will go firmly into the “mad as a hatter” category along side Comrade Locke.
June 5th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
fastbike
“This solution keeps everyone happy, except the right wingers who do not like democracy. If they did, they’d get over it, real quick.”
We had democracy in NZ, YOU voted to remove it, we also had an accepted practice when it came to list seats however YOU also chose to rort that system as well, I now see that you expect all of us to pay for your election campaign.
Why is it that socialists feel they should have unlimited access to MY money?
The Greens deserve to be persecuted for this action, lets see how you guys like it given YOUR persecution of the EB.
June 5th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
You just keep trying to convince us that black is white, bb. Have some more koolaid.
June 5th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Valis
So I guess you are another Greenie who feels a tad embarrassed by this cynical manipulation of our electoral system.
How do you feel about your party being hijacked by the Alliance and the communists?
June 5th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
BB, the Alliance is a dead duck. Give it a rest. Admittedly, Russel Norman stayed in the Alliance for a short while after the Greens left, but soon saw the error of his ways.
The Greens entered the Alliance for one strategic reason alone - to change the electoral system because the FPP system was undemocratic and vast numbers of people felt they had no representation in Parliament.
Once that was sorted, the Greens left, because they didn’t support the authoritarian and undemocratic way Jim Anderton ran the Alliance (which eventually led to the demise of the Alliance). The Green presence in the Alliance was no more than strategic, as they (I chose not to be involved with the Greens as part of the Alliance through that era) saw it as the best path to improving democratic process.
I cannot recall the exact lineup of personalities, but Jeanette, Rod, Sue Kedgley and Keith definitely left the Alliance when the Greens’ voted to depart. Russel stayed a little while, but soon left.
Nandor, Sue Bradford and Metiria had never been part of the Alliance. Nor, to my knowledge, were any of the remaining top 12 on the current Green list.
So, where is the hijack, BB?
June 5th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Frog says:
Catherine is ambitious to be an MP and she will make a great one. She has narrowly missed out two elections in a row and now this. Her maiden speech is going to rock the house.
……………..
You mean she’ll explain tino rangitiratanga as the foundation of Aotearoa so we know what is required of us as tangata tiriti etc?
“I explained that as a Pakeha I had a very limited relationship with the foreshore and seabed but “loved the beachâ€? generally. This did not compare well to the 1000 years of whakapapa and site specific responsibilities that Betty and her hapu maintain to this day.”
“He explained how from the archaeological layers they uncovered at the Port of Gisborne, you can see people arriving, establishing manawhenua and adapting to population expansion from within their cultural framework, and then the violent imposition of Pakeha power in that place. Gordon challenged the committee to re assess their limited understanding of the term “ownershipâ€? and to recognise that the Bill was a continuation of Crown violence based on a crude and absurd underestanding of the wordâ€?ownershipâ€? He described the process as part of “democratheidâ€? a word he has coined which describes the majority imposition of racist policy in a democrarcy. He also described the consequences as not civil war in the conventional sense but a long term proliferation of misery, poverty, misunderstanding and injustice.”
“The other MPs except for Tariana and Metiria, trotted out all the favourite myths about “they killed the moaâ€? etc ” [fastest mass extinction of other species in human history according to archaeologists*]
“As we left the room and the day ended Russell Fairbrother spent 10 minutes talking to Gordon and conceding that the ownership concept in the Bill could lead to violence. We are not holding our breath for change”
http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/other7890.html
*The moas are in any case long gone. ”Yes, this was a blitzkrieg,” Dr. Diamond wrote in Science. ”Yes, a few people could and did kill every moa.”
http://tinyurl.com/47uw8j
June 5th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
fastbike, I feel it is unfair of you to say that right wingers who complain about this “do not like democracy”. The right wingers who complain about this do so because they are seeking to use our forum to advance their agenda. They believe that the tiny numbers of people who read their comments will have their opinions swayed by their argument. Yeah right! They are deluded, but they don’t hate democracy.
June 5th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
“So I guess you are another Greenie who feels a tad embarrassed by this cynical manipulation of our electoral system.
How do you feel about your party being hijacked by the Alliance and the communists?”
I can’t be embarrassed by something that hasn’t happened. Since your memory is so short, my poinits from earlier today:
“It is simply laughable to accuse the Greens of cynical list manipulation. For that to be true, one would have to show an overriding public interest that the list as party members ranked at the last election was sacrosanct in every detail and that those who voted Green were somehow being short changed now. I’m somehow sure that bb is not terribly concerned about Green voters being robbed of appropriate representation, so this is just another one of his straw men.
Let us not forget that this has occurred only because of the death of Rod Donald, which then elevated Russel into the co-leadership. If the Greens had slavishly adhered to their list, I can just see the comments from bb and others who’d rightfully be criticising their political naivety.”
As for the Alliance and communists, you clearly don’t understand either, or you wouldn’t spout such nonsense.
June 5th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
So how does Frogblog rate then?
June 5th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
“As for the Alliance and communists, you clearly don’t understand either, or you wouldn’t spout such nonsense.”
……………….
Are you saying “The Greens aren’t a left-wing party”? How about “we’re a social justice party”… guided by the charter (which we know how to interpret despite life complexities)? I think the big lie of the Green Party is the notion expressed that environmentalism and the left are natural partners to the exclusion of the right (with the exception of the greedy right).
June 5th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
jh, you make the mistake of thinking there is only one axis to place political parties along: namely left - right.
What about another axis: Sustainability, or try another one: Liberal vs Authoritarian.
When you start to explore these you’ll stop calling the Greens a socialist or left wing party. They’re both inaccurate monikers.
June 5th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
BB We had democracy in NZ, YOU voted to remove it
What democracy was that ? $1 = 1 vote ?
And, how do YOU know what I voted for ? Have YOU been tampering with election data ? That can land you in trouble with the law young man.
June 5th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
jh said:
You mean she’ll explain tino rangitiratanga as the foundation of Aotearoa so we know what is required of us as tangata tiriti etc?
Sure she will, jh. And enlighten you on many other things as well. She is a very wise woman, our Catherine.
June 5th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Stuey, LOL. Yes I should be more careful with my characterisations of the right. Maybe my time spent reading the comments at KB has given me the incorrect idea that KB represents the right.
Several of their commenters post here too.
June 5th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
“Are you saying “The Greens aren’t a left-wing partyâ€?? How about “we’re a social justice partyâ€?… guided by the charter (which we know how to interpret despite life complexities)? I think the big lie of the Green Party is the notion expressed that environmentalism and the left are natural partners to the exclusion of the right (with the exception of the greedy right).”
jh, that Green policy shares some common ground with Alliance policy does not mean they’ve been taken over - a trivial fact that shouldn’t have to be stated. And accusing Greens of being communists is just plain stupid and done only as a scare tactic.
The actual big lie is that unlimited growth is compatible with environmentalism. As both Labour and the Nats fundamentally depend on this lie, it is not a simple left/right issue. Of course there’s even less space between the right and the greedy right on this point.
June 5th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Toad unwisely says:
“Sure she will, jh. And enlighten you on many other things as well. She is a very wise woman, our Catherine.”
…………….
I prefer Michael King (and Chris Trotter for that matter). William Shakespear isn’t too silly either as in the Merchant of Venice when Shylock demands a pound of flesh and Portia tells him he mustn’t draw blood. Only your lot are warped enough to believe (for example) that people with Maori ancestry have more right to be here than those who don’t.
June 5th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
No, jh. Te Tiriti guarantees the right to be here both for tangata whenua and tangata tiriti.
June 6th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Only if we accept that tino rangitiratanga is maintained. Tino Rangitiratanga isn’t Tai Chi or Bahai it is what happens when the natives come out and throw spears. Te tiriti has become the big national myth for as long as it was never examined closely (the historical circumstances) or tested. Only you people think it is a workable (stable) basis for a nation.
You people are promoting a set of beliefs where Maori are superior beings: wise spiritual kaitiaki who never rape a resource and will allways allow Pakeha onto their beaches. The idea that ownership was a foriegn concept to Maori is pure semantics… it amounts to the same thing: the ability to control. Yes some of the time Maori will be there smiling in the background, but over time power will consolidate in one form or another. More particularly it won’t feel like our (as in everybody’s) country.
June 6th, 2008 at 11:08 am
jh, that Green policy shares some common ground with Alliance policy does not mean they’ve been taken over - a trivial fact that shouldn’t have to be stated. And accusing Greens of being communists is just plain stupid and done only as a scare tactic.
………
The far left didn’t disappear with the soviet Union; they represent a behavioral element around since before we lived in caves and have been attracted by the fuzzy vision of the Green party [that's my impression].
“The actual big lie is that unlimited growth is compatible with environmentalism. As both Labour and the Nats fundamentally depend on this lie, it is not a simple left/right issue. Of course there’s even less space between the right and the greedy right on this point.”
That’s true but I note Bruce Sheppard (for example ) musing on his blog about values other than our usual economic measures as measures of progress and, as this sort of thinking increases the “funny stuff” in the green party will prevent wider support (and better policy development) for sustainability.
June 6th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Re tiriti, jh, several points. I’m not surprised you have trouble with the concept of indigenous sovereignty if you think it is about throwing spears. What a shameful comment. I’ve always been surprised that there wasn’t more violence from Maori. When the shoe has been on the other foot, Europeans have never hesitated to fight for their land.
Greens do happen to think Te Tiriti is workable if we would only try in good faith. But the real point is that it is the agreement that was made and Greens think that should be honoured. It always gets me that right wingers are so into contract law but can’t see that that’s what this is about. So you are wrong to think Greens see Maori as superior. They just believe in self-determination, which requires a certain willingness to butt out a bit and let them make their decisions.
Now, if you think it can’t work, fine, that’s a valid point of view that needs to be thrashed out, but you need to take it to the tiriti partner and discuss it. You will never get anywhere with an aggrieved party by just saying get over it. You have to acknowledge their rights first and that means the rights guaranteed by Te Tiriti.
Re far left, not denying an overlap, but know any honest comparison would not result in the Greens looking at all like communists.
Haven’t seen Bruce Sheppard’s blog so don’t know what your talking about there. An example would be good.
June 6th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Can I get this straight? The Greens don’t conform to simplistic definitions like left/right wing, but all right wingers do?
June 6th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Valis Says:
June 6th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
But the real point is that it is the agreement that was made and Greens think that should be honoured. It always gets me that right wingers are so into contract law but can’t see that that’s what this is about.
………
But what sort of “agreement” was made and by whom? By comparing it with simple contract law you are comparing apples and pears. The key point is whether or not the the British side really intended (agreed to) tino rangitiratanga or had no choice. In which case they were acting for themselves (wanting to go home early) and if so it puts the whole thing in a different light.