Always look on the bright side

22 comments on “Always look on the bright side ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Brett Dale 1

   5 February 2009 at 12:14 pm

   That’s one way of looking at it.
2. Julie 2

   5 February 2009 at 12:25 pm

   That’s been the weird thing about the last election – best result ever for the Greens, but they are understandably bummed about the outcome.
3. Brett Dale 3

   5 February 2009 at 12:30 pm

   They were hoping for 11% and fell far short.
4. Felix 4

   5 February 2009 at 12:30 pm

   Is the half-a-child supposed to signify “50% more?
5. all_your_base 5

   5 February 2009 at 12:44 pm

   I’m glad to hear that Julie, many of those Greens I’ve spoken to recently have generally struck me as more philosophical than I’d like. Jeanette was even a bit like that on election night from memory.
6. toad 6

   5 February 2009 at 12:59 pm

   Brett Dale said: They were hoping for 11% and fell far short.

   I don’t think any of us in the Greens in our wildest dreams expected 11%. Only one poll had the Green polling that high. Polling showed 8% or 9% might have been achievable though, so I was still a bit disappointed.

   I think l a part of the problem the Greens face is that a disproportionate number of their intended voters in polls are in the younger demographic who are more likely to not make it to a polling booth on election day.

   There is also the problem that the Greens were honest with voters before the election about which major party they would prefer to work with. Which I support, but it would have had the effect of disaffecting some of those who preferred they did not work with Labour.
7. Pascal's bookie 7

   5 February 2009 at 1:24 pm

   There is also the problem that the Greens were honest with voters before the election about which major party they would prefer to work with. Which I support, but it would have had the effect of disaffecting some of those who preferred they did not work with Labour

   I’m not that sure about this. I doubt the existence of large numbers of Green sympathisers that would rather have National than Labour. If the green party wants these votes then they will need to change their economic/welfare/labour/trade/foreign affairs/justice policies.

   I suspect that even if the lesser(fewer) spotted bluegreen’s exist, they are out numbered by lefties that would rather vote green, but will vote Labour to keep National out.

   Maybe that’s why the Green vote increased this year?

   Unknowable unknowns.
8. Janet 8

   5 February 2009 at 1:26 pm

   The new Green MPs haven’t had a chance to make an impact yet. Wait, they will. Catherine Delahunty’s maiden speech next week will be worth watching out for.
   And look at Iceland – Greens major player in the new left government. Successful Green Parties like NZ’s quietly keep growing in strength and influence. And keep their integrity. They’ll be part of the next govt here.
9. Tane 9

   5 February 2009 at 1:29 pm

   I suspect that even if the lesser(fewer) spotted bluegreen’s exist, they are out numbered by lefties that would rather vote green, but will vote Labour to keep National out.

   That’s where I and many of my friends were. We’d prefer to vote Green, but if it meant any chance of a National government then we’d hold our noses and vote Labour to keep the tories out.
10. Brett Dale 10

    5 February 2009 at 2:02 pm

    toad

    You should of been on this board before the election, I got my head bitten off for saying they wont get anywhere near 10%, they would be more like 6%.

    The green party were expecting 10%.
11. toad 11

    5 February 2009 at 3:02 pm

    Brett, there is a bit of talking it up from all parties during an election campaign – I recall lots of stuff from National supporters about getting over 50% – I doubt many of them actually expected that either.
12. MikeE 12

    5 February 2009 at 3:04 pm

    and 100% less influence
13. Johnty Rhodes 13

    5 February 2009 at 9:08 pm

    50% more MPs, 100% less influence on government policy, thats what I call a result.
    The flea that wagged the tail of the Labour Govt dog has been eradicated.
14. gargleshite 14

    5 February 2009 at 9:24 pm

    Just watch all the screaming here when the Green party cuddle up to National and Key in the coming months.
15. Felix 15

    6 February 2009 at 9:10 am

    “The flea that wagged the tail of the Labour Govt dog…”

    So I guess you’re not an ACT supporter or you’d never use that sort of language to describe a minor party’s influence in parliament, even with such a horribly mangled metaphor. You couldn’t possibly be that stupid, could you?
16. Uroskin 16

    6 February 2009 at 9:19 am

    Oh yes, he could
17. outofbed 17

    6 February 2009 at 9:31 am

    Green 2005 120521 votes
    Green 2008 157613 votes
    Greens increased their votes by 30%

    nats 2005 889813 votes
    nats 2008 1053398 votes
    nats increased their votes by 14%

    Although initially disappointing looking at the above figures
    not a bad result by the Greens by anybody’s standard
18. coge 18

    6 February 2009 at 11:50 am

    Jeanette was clearly disappointed on election night. Either for herself, knowing she will never be in Govt, or at the level of electoral support at roughly 50% of what they had been polling. Their problem is weak leadership & bad decision making. The media was certainly not an opponent of the Greens, so where else can the blame be placed?
19. outofbed 19

    6 February 2009 at 4:26 pm

    How many Parties double their Vote ?
    30% increase is a fantastic achievement
    Maybe Jeanette was disappointed at having the prospect of a National Gov who show no signs of being very serious about climate change
    “Where can the blame be place on a 30% increase in voting ?”
    I should imagine the campaign team are very happy, as well they might
20. Steve Withers 20

    6 February 2009 at 4:55 pm

    Let’s remember National want to get rid of MMP and if they succeed the Greens will be excluded from Parliament. The 2011 elections could be the last time a Green vote elects anyone if the Nats get away with stripping hundreds of thousands of Kiwis of the only vote that (almost) always counts: the MMP party vote.
21. coge 21

    6 February 2009 at 5:07 pm

    The question should be are the Greens commited to, or even understand MMP. Here we saw Mr Norman, raving about how John Key was going to destroy the environment the day before the election. He hence nailed his partys colours to the losing Labour Govt. All the hallmarks of a political weakling. He failed to see the nations mood for change. As a result the party he represents could not use the MMP system to at least get some green party policies addressed.
    Why do the green leadership feel they should not be accountable to the people who entrusted them with their democratic votes?
22. Smithy 22

    7 February 2009 at 6:36 pm

    “Here we saw Mr Norman, raving about how John Key was going to destroy the environment the day before the election. He hence nailed his partys colours to the losing Labour Govt.”

    Russel raved as much about Labour re the environment in the run up to the election as he did the Nats. He was trying to get people to vote Green, no?

    “Why do the green leadership feel they should not be accountable to the people who entrusted them with their democratic votes?”

    I expect they have a much better understanding of what accountability to voters means than you do, but remember too that the Greens stance regarding National was decided by the membership, not just the leaders.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS