A billion dollar energy independence programme promising assistance for energy efficency and more renewable generation, and a world leading renewable research programme -that’s the stuff.

Hmmm – I get that too.

I’d rather have the party back in parliament than unelected owing to excessive idealism.

The whole pragmatism vs idealism thing is such a messy debate (Ralph Nader anyone?), but the older I get the more I opt for pragmatism, so, agreed…

The Greens were established in 1990, and gained nearly 7% of the vote at that year’s election.

The Alliance (there’s a clue in the name), was formed in 1991 out of New Labour, Green, Democrats, Mana Motuhake and some other bunch. The Greens had three MPs in the Alliance caucus in the 1996-99 parliament. The decision to leave the Alliance was made in 1997, after Shipley had rolled Bolger but before she became PM, hardly prior to the 1999 election. (Though I assume your point is that the Greens were well served by the attacks made on them by the Nats under Shipley in 1999 when Fitzsimons won in Coromandel)

http://greens.org.nz/about/history.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_New_Zealand

FWIW, I will be voting Green and I don’t expect the party to go into coalition with the Tories. I’d like to see some big ideas, certainly around corporate tax and carbon taxes

I’m an ex-card-carrying Greens member, yet a firm greenie at heart. I’m not mortally offended by the party or anything, just have some doubts about whether they have lost their way a bit lately, and deciding how much I want to be back in the fold. I’m also firmly on the side of the social responsibility message, but politics is the art of the possible, and I’d rather have the party back in parliament than unelected owing to excessive idealism.

My biggest fear is that the Greens don’t yet understand the magnitude of this

I think arguably the Greens (and only the Greens) have understood it for a very long time.

Bad presentation also ruins good content, and the generally good Green policy base is lost on Joe and Jane Public as a result. More aggressive PR management is definitely called for prior to the election, depicting the Greens as a realistic, pragmatic party of solutions, not as kooks and weirdos without a shred of practicality. Proposing to nationalise everything but the kitchen sink won’t help this, IMO, any more than the anti-smacking issue did – irrespective of whether it’s good policy or not. The most common perception of the Greens that I encounter is “meddlesome nanny-state ban-everything sandal-and-kaftan-wearers anti-progress Labour’s lapdogs blardy Sue Bradford none-of-her-business-whether-I-smack-my-kids-or-not…” This must be eradicated and replaced with what the Greens really are (or should be): upbeat, positive, economically alternative (but realistic), non-luddite eco-techs, brave, honest, fair, visionary…

A fundamental problem though is that the Greens do have the fortitude to face up to the big issues like Peak Oil and Global Weirding, which don’t have much in the way of public relations upside… history shows we don’t tend to elect politicians that tell us difficult truths. The environmental message generally is one of profound change, so it’s profoundly uncomfortable. Countering this is hard work, and not for the faint of heart. My biggest fear is that the Greens don’t yet understand the magnitude of this.

Why do you think that they are knitting ?
The Greens support base is mostly made up from highly educated white collar workers, whilst some of those may indeed knit I don’t think its an accurate way to define the party.