Blind Spots When Playing for Big Stakes

Written By: - Date published: 6:05 am, May 2nd, 2025 - 65 comments
Categories: accountability, greens - Tags:

The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand has always worn its values proudly. Few political movements in this country have taken representation as seriously. And for that, it deserves real credit.

Look at the current list and you’ll see something few other parties can claim: a tangible commitment to building a political movement that reflects the full diversity of Aotearoa. LGBTQ+ voices. Māori and Pasifika candidates. People grounded in community work, activism, youth leadership, and climate action. That’s something worth celebrating.

But representation, on its own, is not enough.

The Green Party is at a crossroads — and the choices it makes now will determine whether it evolves into a disciplined, capable political force or risks becoming yet another well-meaning left-wing experiment that collapses under the weight of its own contradictions.

I say this as someone who’s spent years inside the tent. As a former branch co-convenor, I played a role in selecting and vetting local and national candidates. And I’ll be blunt: some of the naivete on display during those processes was breathtaking. Aspiring MPs with public histories of anti-vaccine rants. Candidates who openly distrusted government and democratic institutions. Naturopaths peddling lavender water as a cancer cure.

This isn’t about gatekeeping diverse perspectives. It’s about basic standards. Because while the Green Party celebrates diversity — rightly — it often forgets that being an MP isn’t just about bringing your lived experience to Parliament. It’s about discipline, clarity of thought, resilience under pressure, and the ability to message effectively every single day.

And sometimes, frankly, the party is politically myopic. It forgets just how far ahead of the electorate it often is. That’s not inherently a bad thing — someone has to be the tip of the spear. But it becomes a problem when that forward-thinking idealism isn’t paired with the strategic patience and preparation needed to bring people along. You can’t lead from the front if you forget to look back and check who’s following.

The irony is that the Green Party’s internal culture — one that values open dialogue, alternative worldviews, and tolerance for disagreement — is also part of the problem. That deep-rooted libertarian streak, while refreshing in some contexts, makes it harder to enforce message discipline or ensure candidates are properly vetted. And yet, we must. Because politics as it is today is not a community hui: it’s a blood sport.

And if we don’t play to win, someone else will.

This brings me to a much harder, more painful truth: in New Zealand politics, it is overwhelmingly Māori and Pasifika women, or those with different sexual orientations, particularly those who speak out, who pay the highest price when things go wrong.

Metiria Turei. Golriz Ghahraman. Darleen Tana. Tory Whanau. Elizabeth Kerekere. Ricardo Mendez-March. And now; Tamatha Paul and Benjamin Doyle.

Different contexts, different missteps: but a clear pattern. These MPs are routinely subjected to a level of public scrutiny, harassment, and outright abuse that pakeha, straight, or male politicians almost never face. Their mistakes are amplified. Their character is impugned. Their intentions are questioned. And the media, the public, and often even political allies fall over themselves to distance, disavow, or dehumanise.

It’s nauseating. It’s shameful. And it should enrage every person in this country who claims to believe in equity.

But here’s the cruel paradox: when we fail to support these women properly; or when we fail to ensure they’re set up to succeed from day one, their public stumbles become ammunition for the very forces of racism and sexism we’re supposed to be fighting.

Their reputations suffer, yes. But so too does the broader movement for justice, equity, and transformative politics.

And I want to be upfront about where I’m coming from. I’m a middle-class, heterosexual Pākehā public servant. I’ve got multiple degrees, a well-paid career, and financial security. I’m exactly the kind of person society has coddled and set up for success for centuries. I’ve never had to justify my presence in the room. I’ve never been targeted for who I am. That kind of privilege is easy to miss.

Until you start paying attention, and realise how much harder the system makes it for those who don’t look like me.

That’s exactly why I’m raising this.

Because if we care about lifting up wāhine Māori, Pasifika candidates, queer candidates; anyone outside the narrow frame of who’s “allowed” to lead, then we owe them more than just a platform. We owe them the preparation, support, and political infrastructure to succeed. Without it, we’re not empowering people. We’re setting them up to fail. And that failure doesn’t fall on individuals — it chips away at the whole kaupapa.

It’s true the Greens have grown their share of the vote in recent elections. But we should be cautious about what that really means. Some of it reflects genuine support for Green kaupapa , but much of it is just as easily explained by Labour’s historic weakness, voter frustration, and the lack of any other viable progressive alternative.

Voters are fickle beasts. They punish incompetence, reward visibility, and often vote with a vague sense of “vibe” rather than policy. The danger for the Greens is mistaking this slow electoral drift as a sign of strategic clarity or political strength. Because luck isn’t a strategy. And sooner or later, the window of opportunity closes.

The Green Party’s recent constitutional reforms haven’t helped. If anything, they’ve moved the party further away from the founding principles of non-violence, ecological wisdom, and social responsibility and toward a fuzzier, less defined politics of “justice” that often confuses intention with outcome.

Good intentions are not enough. Not in politics. Not when the stakes are this high.

Let me be clear: I believe in leftist politics. I believe in a bold, clear alternative to the status quo. I’m not here to pull the Greens to the centre or tell them to soften their values. Quite the opposite. I want the Greens to win. Because the country needs them.

But to win, they need to become sharper. More focused. More politically mature.

We need to stop pretending that being right is enough. It’s not.

We need candidates who understand that power is something you earn through credibility, clarity, and consistency — not just through identity or ideology. We need a party that understands representation must come with preparation. That diversity and discipline are not opposites: they are partners.

And above all, we need to recognise that if we don’t build a movement that can actually wield power effectively, we’re not helping the people we claim to stand for.

The Green Party can continue to be a vibrant, principled, and strategic force for ecological and social transformation, if it chooses. Because there is clearly space in Aotearoa for an environmentalist, left-of-centre party that offers a real alternative. But there is not space for a reboot of the failed experiments of the Internet Party, Mana, or New Labour. Passion and principle are not enough on their own. We need staying power. And that requires political maturity.

We also need the humility to accept that MPs — no matter how well-vetted, principled, or experienced — are fallible human beings. They will make mistakes. Some of them will, at times, display truly execrable judgement. That’s not a failure of values — it’s a feature of politics. Because it’s a feature of people.

The job of the party isn’t to pretend that every candidate will be perfect. It’s to be ready for when they aren’t. That means having systems in place to manage the fallout, protect the kaupapa, and respond with integrity — not panic or finger-pointing. Expecting perfection is a trap. Preparing for reality is what maturity looks like.

We still have a choice. But the clock is ticking.

Res Publica

65 comments on “Blind Spots When Playing for Big Stakes ”

  1. Ad 1
    2 May 2025 at 9:19 am

    Crikey that is bracing. Good to hear the well-weathered insiders' view.

    I'm keen to see the Greens come back into Cabinet with a 15% vote share and shunting us in the right direction.

    It only took Shane Jones to point his poo-finger at the Waitakere Ranges this week to remind me what I will defend in this country. The word for world is forest.

    Reply
  2. benby 2
    2 May 2025 at 11:24 am

    Just gotta note that Tamatha Paul has done everything right, and nothing wrong.

    Her scientifically supported words were attempted to be used against her and the Greens, that’s all.

    Benjamin Doyle might have been naive. Wrong though — nope. The deputy PM is wrong.

    Certainly another own goal like migrant exploitation must be avoided at all costs.

    Reply
    • Res Publica 2.1
      2 May 2025 at 12:13 pm

      Thats my entire point though: poltics isn't about being right, or scientifically correct. It's about winning and keeping power.

      That means being super careful about how and what you communicate.

      Reply
  3. Drowsy M. Kram 3
    2 May 2025 at 11:33 am

    Great opinion – has prompted me to donate to the Green Party this morning.

    The irony is that the Green Party’s internal culture — one that values open dialogue, alternative worldviews, and tolerance for disagreement — is also part of the problem.

    Maybe it's part of the problem; maybe it's just who 'the Greens' are – Vive La Différence!

    Anyway, the Green Party can be hard-headed – when needs must.

    James Shaw says MPs who quit put Greens election campaign at risk
    [8 Aug 2017]
    "I think other political parties have been through a great deal worse than this … and come out healthy on the other side."

    Green's Chlöe Swarbrick on Darleen Tana and the party's 'trying' year
    [18 Oct 2024]
    The Green Party's membership reached unanimous consensus on Thursday night to use the "waka-jumping" legislation to kick Tana out of Parliament.

    Because if we care about lifting up wāhine Māori, Pasifika candidates, queer candidates; anyone outside the narrow frame of who’s “allowed” to lead, then we owe them more than just a platform. We owe them the preparation, support, and political infrastructure to succeed.

    This! Positive discrimination is about more than just candidate selection. Still, regardless of preparation, support and political infrastructure, candidates who are 'other' will always be targetted. And that targetting, as personally and politically painful as it may be, holds up a mirror for society to reflect on behaviours and values.

    But there is not space for a reboot of the failed experiments of the Internet Party, Mana, or New Labour. Passion and principle are not enough on their own. We need staying power.

    The Green Party appears to have staying power – it currently holds more parliamentary and electorate seats than ever. Is there another Green party anywhere with this level of parliamentary representation? I hope representation continues to trend upwards, and that another Shaw comes to the fore, but we don't always get what we want.

    Reply
    • Res Publica 3.1
      2 May 2025 at 12:17 pm

      The Green Party appears to have staying power – it currently holds more parliamentary and electorate seats than ever. Is there another Green party anywhere with this level of parliamentary representation? I hope representation continues to trend upwards, and that another Shaw comes to the fore, but we don't always get what we want.

      As I suggested, it would be a mistake to conflate the Greens current support levels with some kind of lasting, natural constituency. Poltics is fickle.

      The instant Labour gets it's shit back together and starts acting like the progressive party it should be, a decent chunk of those voters mayleave.

      Reply
      • Drowsy M. Kram 3.1.1
        2 May 2025 at 1:31 pm

        As I suggested, it would be a mistake to conflate the Greens current support levels with some kind of lasting, natural constituency. Poltics is fickle.

        Certainly is – witness Peters and Dunne – politics is people smiley

        Politics is People [29 July 2024]
        But like everyone, everywhere, they were always more than the state imagined them to be. They preserved their own secrets, their relationships, their memories, from the harshest winds of political ambition. And in time, as the designs of others were washed away, normal people remained.

        "Washed away" having particular relevance to some normal Kiwis today.

        The instant Labour gets it's shit back together and starts acting like the progressive party it should be, a decent chunk of those voters mayleave.

        There'll be no "may" about it, if Labour "starts acting like the [more] progressive party it should be", and this (non-fickle) Green Party voter would be over the moon. But Labour may continue to 'act' like a middle-of-the-road progressive party, while our useless (unless you're wealthy and/or a landLord) self-serving CoC (NActF) govt continues to swing its wrecking balls.

        [deleted]
        Luxon, Seymour, Peters penis poster: Wellington City Council puts out order to remove flyers

        Reply
        • weka 3.1.1.1
          2 May 2025 at 1:56 pm

          I've also removed the flyer. It might work if it had the party logos on it, maybe.

          But if the left sanctions that, then the right is free to use images of women MPs faces on toilet seats (remember that one?). It’s a type of demeaning politics.

          We don't actually have to do what they do in order to have power.

          Reply
      • Ian B 3.1.2
        2 May 2025 at 4:56 pm

        "The instant Labour gets its shit back together and starts acting like the progressive party it should be"…it hasn't been a progressive party for over 40 years and shows no sign of being so any time soon. However, people will shift back as soon as they get their 'shit together' and produce a more publicly palatable neoliberal message than the one currently on offer by the Coalition of Chaos or the milquetoast one Labour offered last election. Neoliberal ideology and practice is so embedded in our thinking and way of being that alternatives ways thinking and doing are hard for most people. As the philosopher Wittgenstein said: In order to see one's way out of the fly-bottle, one's perspective must be different that of the fly". We nee people who can not only see their way out of the bottle, but articulate it in populist language.

        Reply
    • Karolyn_IS 3.2
      2 May 2025 at 12:20 pm

      For a long time the GP policies have been largely the ones I most strongly support eg on ending poverty, climate change, treatment of those on the lowest incomes including beneficiaries. They still are the party whose policies are the ones I most strongly support.

      The irony is that the Green Party’s internal culture — one that values open dialogue, alternative worldviews, and tolerance for disagreement — is also part of the problem.

      Except, the GP has shown it can ditch that cultural value when it suits, when it imported #NoDebate from the UK, along with the wholesale embracing of gender ID theory and MO from the US. They have treated those of us who disagree with all that, by calling has names, smearing us as bigots, fashists, white supremacists, etc, and censoring and deplatforming any people who disagree.

      This has alienated many of us who used to vote GP, and led me to question how it is that GPs in many countries have done exactly the same thing? It seems to indicate a weakness in their ways of operating.

      As a lesbian, I find the term 'queer', gender self ID, and the way we have been redefined as same-gender attracted rather than same-sex attracted to be reactionary, homophobic and, in the case of 'queer' a real turn off. Now there are loads of heterosexuals claiming to be 'queer' because they don't have stereotypical heterosexual relationships, plus there are heterosexual men claiming to be lesbians and heterosexual women claiming to be gay men because they self ID as the opposite sex.

      As more and more people try to clamber under the umbrella of the alphabet string tagged onto the (now meaningless) LGB. I don't know what some of the letters stand for. What is the + meant to signify?

      And the GPs internationally have allowed women's sex-based rights and provisions to come under attack, with attempts to basically make them all mixed sex. If any man can self ID as a woman, and claim access to those rights & provisions, there are no women's rights.

      As we are now seeing in the UK, the whole of #NoDebate is collapsing. The trouble with all that silencing and censoring is that bad and incorrect ideas and practices can gain traction. This is exactly what happened in the UK with trans-supporting organisations promoting an incorrect interpretation of the equalities law. That interpretation was sold to public and private organisations, even though women's groups kept telling them they were misinterpreting the law.

      A culture that allows open dialogue, tolerance for different world views, and tolerance for disagreement is a very important one and essential to democratic processes.

      I hope the NZ GP gets back to fully embracing such a culture. If their desire to grow their vote is to be realised, then I think it is essential to do so.

      Reply
  4. Patricia Bremner 4
    2 May 2025 at 12:33 pm

    While I see what you are promoting, I find it interesting that the right wing parties and members never explain minimise their errors and help with the false trails/tails and cover ups. plus they also use the legal system to supress identities and or deflect, "that is before the courts so I can not add more." This has become such accepted practise, our PM says often when questioned "I don't care!" The press do not "see" until it is so egregious they have no choice and the situation is then on "page 3 in small print." Or, another event or item suddenly appears to sidetrack and distract the audience.

    A small error on the left is examined in minute detail, put out with huge headlines, so yes the right use their money, connections and outright privilege.to magnify sometimes minor mistakes. Considering this "politics" is a mistake. It is use of power to imprint a perception, nothing more. The inverse is the ability to create a high powered distraction when one of their own stumbles. Privilege often means being sorted in that the assets owned earn them income, not the sweat of their brow.

    All of this means people who are different will always be disadvantaged. It is much harder to fight from the bottom of the pile than from the top. How that is changed? Well small chips have appeared in my long lifetime, but this current three party hydra is removing those gains as fast as they are able. After all we would not say to a mugging victim, “Why were you there?” That would be victim blaming. So we need to look more closely at the perpetrators and their systems, rather than expecting difference to hide away.

    I think the answer is the left have to meet and decide what broad planks they will promote to make life better for the majority, and present them as talking points and rallying cries, ideas such as sustainability community health education housing employment culture and arts and social security, being a few that come to mind.

    I am still waiting for a real reporter to ask our PM after he again says "I don't care". "Why are you PM then?"

    Reply
    • Res Publica 4.1
      2 May 2025 at 2:22 pm

      I hear you.

      I share your frustration with the double standards in politics—the way power and media are weaponised, how privilege protects those at the top while shifting blame downward.

      You’re absolutely right: this isn’t just politics. It’s a system of perception management, designed to maintain dominance through narrative control and institutional gatekeeping.

      But we can’t just wish that system away. This is the terrain we’re on. If we want real, lasting progressive change, we have to play the long game: build broad coalitions, win power sustainably, and hold it long enough to embed reforms that truly level the playing field.

      That requires more than being right, principled, or loud. It requires strategy. It means rallying around a shared platform that resonates with the majority—like you said: housing, education, community, sustainability, the dignity of work, arts and culture, a real safety net.

      These are popular ideas. They can win: if we stay focused, disciplined, and make them the heart of our politics. If we speak in a way that’s not only passionate, but plausible.

      So yes. Call out the bias. Name the systems. But also: let’s get serious about winning.

      Because no one is coming to save us.

      We either out-organise the right. Or we lose. Again.

      Reply
  5. SPC 5
    2 May 2025 at 12:37 pm

    There was a place for New Labour, as a protest against 1984-1990 Labour (albeit standing in 1993 had a consequence). And also under MMP, till Greens were able to supplant their role.

    There was also a place for Mana as a protest against the MP coalition with National.

    Reply
    • Res Publica 5.1
      2 May 2025 at 2:26 pm

      Note how neither of those parties exist anymor and how short-lived they were as vehicles of protest; more of a middle finger than movement. That’s the pattern.

      If the left has a long and rich tradition, it’s also got a chronic tendency toward splintering and treating compromise as betrayal, and unity as weakness.

      But being against something only takes you so far. Real change demands more than opposition: it needs construction. It needs a movement that stands for something, that can carry people with it, and that can last.

      That’s how you shift the terrain—not just shout at it.

      Reply
      • SPC 5.1.1
        2 May 2025 at 2:33 pm

        They shifted the terrain.

        Labour 1999 on, did things New Labour wanted.

        TPM is not the same party that went with National.

        Reply
        • Anne 5.1.1.1
          2 May 2025 at 3:11 pm

          "They shifted the terrain".

          Well, Douglas and acolytes walked from the party in the latter 1980s. That left the rest of the caucus to reset itself. It took them a long time to do it. Prebble lost his Auckland Central seat in 1993 and decided to quit the party. That was the last of them gone and the caucus replaced leader Mike Moore with Helen Clark as leader.

          Even then, it took another six years before they governed again. There's a lesson in that story but not sure what it is. 😕

          Perhaps it says “You mess with your basic tenets at your peril”.

          Reply
          • SPC 5.1.1.1.1
            2 May 2025 at 3:40 pm

            Sure, the Labour caucus that followed Douglas did not deserve the loyalty of the party and Anderton knew it.

            It took new leadership of Labour and working with New Labour to heal the breach.

            The tragedy of 1993 (the government few people wanted staying in office) at least resulted in 1996 MMP. But then NZF (deliberately) divided the opposition vote, to then choose to form a coalition with the most unpopular government in our history. A horrible decade, in which neo-liberals such as Murray Horn boasted they had installed a regime that was set in place for a generation. If this government gets a second term that may well be so.

            What that would make 2040 is disturbing – how does one have a bi-centennial that involves becoming a state of Australia to retain a functional modern nation governance?

            Reply
    • Alan 5.2
      3 May 2025 at 1:23 pm

      MANA did not disappear. When the Māori Party lost in 2017 it booted out the old pro-National members and had a total make-over. MANA then decided to re-join TMP as our policies were now identical and we're still very much part of TMP.

      The recent hikoi have shown there are large numbers of Māori waiting in the wings for the right opportunity. Whether they vote Labour, TMP, Green or not at all will depend on whether the parties of the left offer policies that include Māori as active participants (by Māori for Māori where that doesn't disadvantage anyone else) or offer more of the same old, same old, that turns off Māori voters -and maybe many others too.

      Reply
      • SPC 5.2.1
        3 May 2025 at 2:05 pm

        Sure, Res Publica was the one claiming they no longer exist (as if continuance as an independent party was the purpose).

        As with New Labour, a work to challenge "their party"' to be better – then rejoin (or some of Alliance into the Green Party).

        Reply
        • Res Publica 5.2.1.1
          3 May 2025 at 5:26 pm

          That feels like an odd way to frame what was, in practical terms, a crushing electoral defeat.

          If folding back into the larger movement is being pitched as a strategic regrouping rather than a collapse, fine. But let’s not pretend that was the plan all along. Leaving in protest, getting hammered at the polls, then returning quietly doesn’t exactly scream “tactical masterstroke.”

          Sometimes it's better to acknowledge when a strategy didn’t land, rather than rewriting the story to fit a more flattering narrative.

          Reply
          • SPC 5.2.1.1.1
            3 May 2025 at 6:08 pm

            For some realising change is the goal, not attaining power.

            The TPM that formed a coalition with National no longer exists (and it will say it secured the continuance of the Maori seats and the signing of UNDRIP).

            The Alliance realised the creation of the Ministry of Economic Development, leading to KiwiBank and KiwiRail. And more state house builds. A walk back from asset sales. And the end of market rents.

            Reply
  6. Corey 6
    2 May 2025 at 12:55 pm

    Nice post I agree with a lot of this especially with the fact that the Greens are facing an existential crisis and few seem to understand it.

    I have held my nose and voted greens in 2 of the 4 elections I've been old enough vote, but the unprofessionalism of the caucus this term has been unacceptable and I'm mad I voted for them in 2023.

    It's focus on selecting candidates based on identity politics rather than merit and suitability for parliament is profoundly stupid.

    A lot of people like the concept of the Greens, nice daggy do gooders who care about composting and are parliaments conscious, ie the Rod Donald kinda Greenie but that isn't the modern green party

    It's interesting to note that like every other Green party around the world, it's simply the concept of the Greens that is popular not the party itself.

    Like their international cohorts, when the greens are invisible and not making news, their polls go up, but when the public sees and hears from them, usually their polls go down.

    The Aussie greens for instance promise shit that is constitutionally impossible, economically infeasible, or hilariously shit that already exists.

    Though the NZ Greens to their credit unlike their international cohorts, play nicely with the major center left party (most of the time), I can't see them ever voting down environmental policy for not being perfect or voting down a center left govt like overseas greens.

    One thing I will say as a gay man from a mixed race working class family who is in their voting age demographic and held my nose and voted for them last time but will not vote for them again:

    The Green party has a men problem!

    Until about 5 years ago, most of the green voters I knew were heterosexual 18-40 year old white males, it was the party of guys who were too "based" for labour.

    This group wouldn't be caught dead voting green now and it's the green party's fault, not online hate merchants.

    During the sixth labour government, the greens went as Paul Keating would say "troppo" on idpol, actively, purposefully and gleefully alienating this group of voters.

    The greens wrongly thought that to raise minority voices, they had to silence those they deemed "privileged" they went about it the wrong way, in fact doing damage to the acceptance of movements they sought to raise up.

    The straight white men who used to vote for them now give TOP 2-3% every election (some even vote act/nzf out of spite) and many more just stay home.

    The party goes out of its way not to have heterosexual white men or men in general really, in caucus, James Shaw was treated abysmally by the party and some of the statements by the co-leaders are deeply counterproductive to building a large movement.

    The Green party needs more party discipline, it needs better candidates, more thorough research of its candidates and more environmentalists

    But it also needs to address it's male problem, it needs more white heterosexual men in its caucus, be they of the Rod Donald, Kennedy Graham, James Shaw or Gareth Hughes variety

    Because it needs to get that demographic back from top and get the non voters it lost back

    Otherwise it's just a party for LGBT+ activists and intersectional feminists and people who like the concept of the old green party.

    Or as Helen Clark called them "Goths, anarchists, militant feminist"

    I want the greens to be strong, I want labour to be strong, to be strong we need a coalition of male, female, young old, all ethnicities.

    Either that or Labour should do a seat deal with TOP in Peter Dunnes old seat, because if the Greens don't wanna win back that vote (and it IS their old male vote) thats 2-4 seats that could help form a center left govt being wasted every election.

    Reply
    • weka 6.1
      2 May 2025 at 1:50 pm

      Agree on the bloke thing, and I do scratch my head at not just the GP but the left left generally, how does it play out in their minds? Everyone eventually adopts the same ideological identity politics position and starts to vote Green? Why would everyone do that exactly?

      I guess there is a theory that Labour should be the party that is meeting the cultural needs of straight white blokes. But Labour seem to be doing that by centrist neoliberal positioning, not labour politics. Which will probably win them the next election, but it's not going to get us far in terms of the global polycrisis (climate, ecology, fascism), nor domestic issues like the housing crisis.

      Which makes the GP's strategy doubly frustrating. They have great policy development that has a lot of potential and it gets subsumed.

      Btw, this is the GP list from 2023. Candidates not in parliament starts at 17. Best thing people can do atm is join the party so they can vote on the list positioning next year.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_lists_in_the_2023_New_Zealand_general_election#Green_Party

      Also important is that the Greens have just finished a nine month review of the candidate selection and list ranking procedures. So fingers crossed things will improve.

      Reply
    • Dennis Frank 6.2
      2 May 2025 at 3:15 pm

      During the sixth labour government, the greens went as Paul Keating would say "troppo" on idpol, actively, purposefully and gleefully alienating this group of voters.

      I saw that happening at the time but tried to give them a benefit of doubt on how rabid folks would see it. In retrospect, I suspect your diagnosis is correct and I was being pulled off-centre by my old tribal affiliation. The '70s/'80s rainbow coalition framing remains valid in principle but them young folk pretending to represent the Green movement in parliament need to get real about how well it works.

      I once onsite here quoted a report that measured how many of the Green caucus are using some kind of non-binary identifier. I seem to recall it was 45% at the time several years back. If anything like that ratio applies currently, they're almost certainly locked into some kind of voter ghetto. That's a serious problem.

      To shift up into the 15%-20% range of public support they will have to create common ground with sympathetic voters alienated by wokeism. That's the design challenge confronting them currently. I doubt any of them have the intellect to realise it – but on a good day I'll acknowledge that there could be at least a small group who do!

      Their primary problem is inability to promote a paradigm shift in economics but they share that with the entire left. My advice would be to start with true-cost accounting as foundational principle, which I merely endorsed in the Greens economic policy working group as member around '92. You could go global with that real fast now.

      Reply
    • gsays 6.3
      2 May 2025 at 5:21 pm

      Thanks Corey for saying that about blokes.

      I started to write a comment a couple of times but chickened out. Davidson's white straight males (I refuse to use another's words to define myself) cause all the violence summation really let a mask slip. And no, I don't buy the excuse offered about being 'in shock' following the motorbike collision. That happened before the bash a granny Albert Park protest and the comments were made after the event had occurred.

      I agree Shaw was a big loss and treated poorly by a section of the party. He was as close as to someone that felt familiar/relatable to me in parliament. Now it's McAnulty.

      Reply
      • SPC 6.3.1
        2 May 2025 at 6:06 pm

        Marama Davidson is refusing to apologise publicly for saying it's "white cis men who cause violence in the world".

        Putin and Ukraine.

        Netanyahu in Gaza and West Bank, under the protection of Biden and Bush.

        Bush and Blair in Iraq paving the way for Islamic State.

        Don't take the observation of global facts personally.

        How much of so called underclass criminal violence is a result of injustice/inequality resulting from policy settings designed by … .

        Reply
        • gsays 6.3.1.1
          2 May 2025 at 6:24 pm

          Stop being disingenuous.

          She was speaking as Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence Minister.

          And this is in the context of male voters less likely to vote Green.

          Reply
          • SPC 6.3.1.1.1
            2 May 2025 at 6:53 pm

            Same back.

            She was that Minister, but she did not say them as Minister. If she had, they would have been in a press statement as such.

            She was speaking as a Green Party co-leader to media.

            Reply
            • weka 6.3.1.1.1.1
              2 May 2025 at 6:58 pm

              I agree she was there are GP MP, but she said "I am a prevention violence minister" at the same time. She had two hats on.

              Reply
              • SPC …
                2 May 2025 at 7:07 pm

                It's nuanced, she was not a "prevention of violence minister" but a minister for prevention of "family and sexual violence" and she was speaking about violence in the world – beyond her ministerial portfolio in New Zealand.

                So about the non violence part of the Green world program platform.

                Prevention would be the commonality, part of that is identifying causality -privilege and power.

                Reply
        • weka 6.3.1.2
          2 May 2025 at 6:40 pm

          MD's actual words,

          "Trans people are tired of being oppressed and discriminated," Davidson said. "I am a prevention violence minister [sic]. I know who causes violence in the world, it is white cis men. That is white cis men who cause violence in the world."

          https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350470086/marama-davidson-refuses-to-apologise-publicly-over-white-cis-men-comment

          When someone says " I know who causes violence in the world, it is white cis men.", it's not unreasonable for people to hear that as white cis men are the bad ones, and let's not think about who else causes violence, nor all the white cis men who don't cause violence.

          She was the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence. She had a duty to not throw petrol on the culture war, as well as more accurately represent the genesis of violence. Systems of oppression cause violence. What she threw out in reaction to being confronted was identity politics, it's not class analysis. I get that she was taken aback at being stopped in the street, but that doesn't mean she was right in her messaging.

          Social justice is incredibly important. Telling white cis men they're bad/wrong is a massive fail and we just have to stop doing this.

          I have my own feminist critiques of the power that white men have, but Bush, Blair, Putin etc aren't simply white cis men, they're white men with a very large amount of personal and institutional power and wealth. If you want to argue that white men cause underclass violence via policy making, then you are saying that white men are inherently bad. This is one of the reasons why men are turning to Jordan Peterson or Andrew Tate.

          What we can do instead is analyse why white men end up in those positions of power and the system that privileges them over others. That's where the change can happen and we can have that conversation without telling white men yet again that they're fucked.

          btw, MD did in fact clarify later she misspoke. It's in the link.

          Reply
          • SPC 6.3.1.2.1
            2 May 2025 at 6:59 pm

            She was speaking as Green co-leader to media.

            That she was a Minister of the Cabinet with those portfolios was why she apologised to the PM, rather to the public. She clarified her comments to the public.

            Reply
            • weka 6.3.1.2.1.1
              2 May 2025 at 8:05 pm

              here is what she said,

              Davidson said she should have been clear that "violence happens in every community".

              "My intention was to affirm that trans people are deserving of support and to keep the focus on the fact that men are the main perpetrators of violence."

              "I have clarified what I intended to say and particularly affirm and acknowledge victims and survivors who may not have seen themselves in my comments and wanted to make sure I affirm their experiences," Davidson said.

              In the context of the post, I think this an example of where the Greens prioritise being activists over being effective in gaining power. As I’ve said elsewhere, it’s a valid choice to choose activism. It won’t solve the climate crisis though.

              If any Green MP wants to be a Minister, they have to reconcile their activism with that. Part of the issue is perceptions of competency. It’s ok to make mistakes like MD did, I just want the Greens to make less of them, and to handle them differently. I’m glad MD came out with better messaging in that case, but I agree with gsays, that we are left with the impression she really does see the world in terms of white cis men being bad.

              Reply
              • SPC …
                2 May 2025 at 8:26 pm

                And also

                Davidson replied: "What I have done is clarified what I intended to say directly in a public statement and make it really clear that I was wanting to push back hard on the untruth and harm about trans people being the biggest threat to women."

                "This is simply not true and that my intention was to highlight the structures of power that are behind the drivers of violence and I will continue to make that point."

                As for

                she really does see the world in terms of white cis men being bad

                Is it not Green polity to note the cause of the economic and societal inequality? Are not the structures of power an inheritance from colonialism, imperialism, capitalism of by and for a class of white race men?

                That this did not include all white race men/working class men is patently obvious, except in regard to women and those of indigenous culture. There is no need to take offence at class analysis when it includes reference to women and indigenous peoples.

                (superseding 8.09pm)

                Reply
                • weka …
                  2 May 2025 at 9:07 pm

                  Sure, but the statement she made originally wasn't about systems that cause violence, it was calling cis white men bad. I already commented on this.

                  We can keep arguing about this, but it misses the point of the post (and imo gsays' comment). It's easy to defend the Greens when they make mistakes. That doesn't win votes. Do we want to be right, or do we want to win? From the post,

                  We need to stop pretending that being right is enough. It’s not.

                  It doesn't harm the left to admit we get it wrong sometimes and to work through that. It makes us stronger.

                  Reply
                • Res Publica …
                  3 May 2025 at 5:23 pm

                  As John Key once put it: “Explaining is losing.” Marama may have been absolutely correct in her underlying observation. But the way it was communicated—then doubled down on, walked back, and finally clarified—was, at best, politically clumsy.

                  It wasn’t the substance that hurt her. It was the delivery, and the lack of strategic awareness in how it played out publicly.

                  Reply
            • SPC 6.3.1.2.1.2
              2 May 2025 at 8:09 pm

              And also

              Davidson replied: "What I have done is clarified what I intended to say directly in a public statement and make it really clear that I was wanting to push back hard on the untruth and harm about trans people being the biggest threat to women."

              "This is simply not true and that my intention was to highlight the structures of power that are behind the drivers of violence and I will continue to make that point."

              Reply
    • Binders full of women 6.4
      2 May 2025 at 7:25 pm

      Well said. Too identity driven. Not Green. My first ever vote was Green, before the Green Party even existed I think. 1987? Election. Pre MMP, old Rodney seat ..true blue Don McKinnon huge majority and Labour candidate was a nobody. So I proudly voted for the good Rev .. Green candidate (husband of my high school English teacher). There's no way I'm voting for Bussy's party.

      Reply
    • mikesh 6.5
      3 May 2025 at 11:53 am

      Labour should do a seat deal with TOP in Peter Dunnes old seat

      The Ohariu electorate, that Tracy Martin called ” the thinking electorate”, no longer exists, due to boundary changes.

      Reply
  7. SPC 7
    2 May 2025 at 1:05 pm

    It is those who challenge the establishment, that seeks the mandate of the middle class to continue to rule (and reign) who have some difficulty with others who might challenge them.

    This includes those on the left who champion the working class. Or centre-left women leading the opposition, or worse winning an election or two or three.

    Given the Green Party represents a future governance based on an alternative that threatens patriarchy, capitalism, social conservatism and inherited privilege in a new way (not discredited by failed efforts at socialism), one consistent with maintaining the planet as a habit for life for future generations and a society valuing social justice it poses an existential challenge to their tradition.

    It is one based on values that their order did not live up to.

    They were first corrupted by being inside the circle of power (feudal order), the landed gentry that then partnered with whig mammon to continue to lord it over labour.

    The idea of Maori claiming their rights, or coloured migrants from the Pacific (or ME or South America or Africa) supporting the left in their land offends them.

    PS It is notable that when the NACT axis sees a growing demographic that might vote centre-right they are notably more restrained (Chinese and Indian and since gender identity politics kulturekampf (white gay males and lesbian females).

    Reply
  8. Muttonbird 8
    3 May 2025 at 3:28 pm

    Numbers don't add up. These are the party vote returns for the Greens for the last 9 elections and the last 25 years (ie since the existence of the Green Party?):

    Current (last 6 months average) polling 11.24% Davidson/Swarbrick

    2023 11.60% Davidson/Shaw

    2020 7.86% Davidson/Shaw

    2017 6.27% Shaw

    2014 10.70% Turei/Norman

    2011 11.06% Turei/Norman

    2008 6.72% Fitzsimons/Norman

    2005 5.30% Fitzsimons/Donald

    2002 7.00% Fitzsimons/Donald

    1999 5.16% Fitzsimons/Donald

    Last election was their best result ever so it is demonstrably false that so called identity politics and socially conscious policy at the expense of 'white male daggy do gooders' are hurting the Greens.

    Their best 4 of those 9 election results (5 of 10 if you include current polling) were with a Maori woman as co-leader.

    Post feels like blue/green concern trolling to me.

    Reply
    • Res Publica 8.1
      3 May 2025 at 5:22 pm

      If you're determined to dismiss any critique of the Greens' current trajectory as "concern trolling," that's your prerogative.

      But it’s not a serious way to engage with the discussion.

      To be clear, I’m not arguing that representation is a liability, or that Marama Davidson’s leadership has been electorally harmful. As you rightly point out, recent results suggest otherwise.

      What I am suggesting is that strong results in the past don’t automatically validate the entire strategic approach going forward. Elections are discrete, contingent events shaped by unique circumstances: national mood, turnout, the state of other parties, major events, and so on.

      The voters of 2026 will be influenced by different pressures than those of 2023.

      So while the recent 11.6% was the Greens’ best showing yet, that doesn’t mean the current messaging, policies, or political culture are beyond critique. That’s not a call to abandon principles—but a reminder that electoral outcomes are complex, and introspection should never be off the table.

      Especially after a brutal cycle that has seen so much internal controversy and turnover within the caucus.

      Reply
      • Muttonbird 8.1.1
        3 May 2025 at 5:47 pm

        What are you talking about? If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. The "Greens' current trajectory" is very positive:

        2023 11.60% Davidson/Shaw

        2020 7.86% Davidson/Shaw

        2017 6.27% Shaw

        This is because of their ability to appeal to a wide range of voters both environmentally and socially concerned. These voters respond to witnessing people similar to them in representative positions. Like it or not they are a lot of low income, or brown, or gender/sex non conformist people out there.

        I agree there have been some screw ups. These MPs and candidates who are inherently from low income, activist and minority backgrounds require a lot of support to navigate white, colonialist, anti-environment parliamentary structure and a small, anti-establishment party might have difficulty managing that. But you're claiming they are destined to be a "well-meaning left-wing experiment that collapses under the weight of its own contradictions" who will die if they don't change.

        The numbers above suggest otherwise.

        Reply
        • Ad 8.1.1.1
          3 May 2025 at 7:09 pm

          That's the spirit.

          15% in 2026.

          Labour 35%.

          NZF 4% and out.

          Nov 2026 we get proper leadership back.

          Reply
        • weka 8.1.1.2
          3 May 2025 at 8:21 pm

          The numbers above suggest otherwise.

          Maybe, maybe not.

          2017 6.27% Ardern becomes leader of the Labour Party

          2020 7.86% Ardern leads the country through the Chch Mosque murders, White Island, and the beginnings of the pandemic.

          2023 11.60% Ardern resigns and is replaced. by Hipkins.

          Some clever person can probably match the three poll trend to weather events, or alignment of the stars.

          Like it or not they are a lot of low income, or brown, or gender/sex non conformist people out there.

          Is there any evidence that those people are voting Green? Or that they represent the 4% increase in 2023?

          Reply
          • Muttonbird 8.1.1.2.1
            3 May 2025 at 10:01 pm

            Stats are stats. We are asked to look at trends in support not single points or events. That is what I have done.

            Is there any evidence these people are voting Green?

            I'm not a political scientist but it seems clear the policy position of the Greens is attracting significant support, ie the highest election result they have ever achieved and this is post Davidson's statement to Hannah Spierer outside Posie Parker's rally.

            If, as some claim, diversity is the reason the Greens are not disciplined enough, the answer surely can’t be more white men.

            Reply
            • Drowsy M. Kram 8.1.1.2.1.1
              3 May 2025 at 11:40 pm

              yes Don't understand what's behind comments from the left catastrophising the GP's electoral prospects. Imho, the idea that some new Green MPs, with little political experience relative to other parties, could do with more support and mentoring from party infrastructure and established MPs is a good one.

              Green Party MPs should stay true to, and advocate for GP values via evidence-based policy platforms. That they're less about 'win win win', and more about consensus building is certainly attractive to me, along with many of their other values. Not all, of course, but she's a hard road finding the Perfect Party.
              Now there's an idea for a new political movement – the NZPP.

              Our values

              The work we do is based on our charter and the values we share as a movement and as a political party.

              Collectively we aim to:

              • Act according to our Charter
              • Respect the planet and the web of life of which we are one part
              • Take the path of caution in the face of serious uncertainty about the consequences of human action
              • Think long term and holistically
              • Make decisions by consensus whenever possible
              • Engage respectfully, without personal attacks
              • Support ideas on their merit, regardless of where they originate
              • Actively respect cultural and individual diversity and celebrate difference
              • Maintain a community focus
              • Enable participation with dignity and challenge oppression
              • Encourage new voices and cherish wisdom
              • Recognise our duty of care towards those who cannot speak for themselves
              • Foster compassion, a sense of humour and mutual enjoyment in our work
              Reply
              • weka …
                4 May 2025 at 10:23 am

                you're missing the point.

                No-one is catastrophising about the GP polling. Misrepresenting the arguments here as catastrophising could be a form of catastrophising 😉

                Of course the GP should stick to its values and policy platform. Again, no-one has said otherwise.

                The argument here is about what to do in addition to that.

                Reply
                • Drowsy M. Kram …
                  4 May 2025 at 10:35 am

                  Of course the GP should stick to its values and policy platform.

                  At this moment, I particularly like "Foster compassion, a sense of humour and mutual enjoyment in our work".

                  The argument here is about what to do in addition to that.

                  Thanks weka, I do agree with "the idea that some new Green MPs, with little political experience relative to other parties, could do with more support and mentoring from party infrastructure and established MPs" – we can agree to disagree about no-one catastrophising, and missing the point.

                  Bein’ Green [3 minute YouTube vid]

                  Reply
                  • weka …
                    4 May 2025 at 10:50 am

                    maybe next time you make the case that some people are catastrophising, you can point it out? I don't know if you mean the post, me, any number of people…

                    Reply
                    • Drowsy M. Kram …
                      4 May 2025 at 11:17 am

                      In my reply to Muttonbird @8.1.1.2.1.1, I was musing on Muttonbird's line of reasoning, beginning @8 and ending @8.1.1.2.1, particularly this (imho) factual statement: "it seems clear the policy position of the Greens is attracting significant support, ie the highest election result they have ever achieved".

                      maybe next time you make the case that some people are catastrophising, you can point it out?

                      It flows from the post. I agree "some new Green MPs, with little political experience relative to other parties, could do with more support and mentoring from party infrastructure and established MPs". It may be naive, but don’t share the concerns of the post appears to be about this possibility.

                      The Green Party… risks becoming yet another well-meaning left-wing experiment that collapses under the weight of its own contradictions.
                      …
                      The clock is ticking.

                    • weka []
                      4 May 2025 at 11:52 am

                      thanks for clarifying, I understand what you mean now.

                      When asked about the 2017 election result for the Greens, Shaw has said that they just relieved to be back in parliament as a party.

                      That’s how easy it is to lose a party. That near miss was a consequence of a number of things. The fallout from Turei’s speech on poverty and welfare, the right’s attacks on her and the Greens, the MSM going hard after her, and the Greens’ unpreparedness for both the extent of the attack as well as their difficulty managing once that whole thing started unravelling.

                      This doesn’t mean they were useless. I still think Turei was right, and her speech and the following focus on the issues shifted the public and MSM debate on poverty and welfare. Shaw was very good in fronting up on the issues, particularly when the two MPs went rogue and after Turei resigned.

                      They also messed up in some areas. I understand that the caucus didn’t know the content of the speech, hence the problem for the two MPs who then went against the party. Turei and Shaw appeared to have misunderstood the degree to which many people in NZ hate welfare fraud. These are mistakes that needed to be learned from, and it’s healthy and useful for the left to talk about them.

                    • weka []
                      4 May 2025 at 11:54 am

                      to further support the idea that the Greens do good and also have this blind spot, one could say that they got back into parliament because of competency (front facing thanks to Shaw), but they were in that position of potentially being out of parliament because of incompetency and perceptions of incompetency. I struggle to understand why it’s a problem to talk about the problems.

                    • Drowsy M. Kram …
                      4 May 2025 at 11:29 am

                      … but I don’t share the concerns of the post appears to be about this possibility.

                      The Green Party… risks becoming yet another well-meaning left-wing experiment that collapses under the weight of its own contradictions.
                      …
                      The clock is ticking.

                    • Drowsy M. Kram …
                      4 May 2025 at 12:36 pm

                      I struggle to understand why it’s a problem to talk about the problems.

                      Good faith discussions about Green Party problems, and possible solutions (such as more support/mentoring for new Green MPs), are all well and good, as long as they ultimately serve to put the heat on political wreckers in the pocket of private capital.

                      The clock is always ticking.

            • Res Publica 8.1.1.2.1.2
              4 May 2025 at 8:15 am

              I totally get the appeal of looking at trends, and I agree they’re more useful than single data points.

              But I do think we need to be cautious about drawing too much from recent polling or even the last election result. As the Canadian and Australian elections have both shown, political momentum can shift dramatically. Sometimes in the space of weeks or even days.

              History is littered with political leaders that tried to fight the last election. And it is clear the electorate in 2026 will be very different to 2023.

              What worries me a bit is that some people seem to be interpreting current support for the Greens as evidence of deep organisational strength or strategic clarity. I’m not convinced that’s the case. It’s possible the party is benefiting from wider dissatisfaction with the current government or particular flashpoints, but that can evaporate quickly if it’s not backed by disciplined organisation and internal cohesion.

              Those dissatisfied voters could just as easily go to Labour.

              In fact, I worry that the recent success might be papering over some pretty serious weaknessess about how the Greens select candidates, manage issues, and communicate policy.

              That’s not a call for "more white men." It’s a call for better political craft, deeper organising, and a clearer understanding of how to translate values into sustained electoral power.

              Reply
              • weka …
                4 May 2025 at 1:11 pm

                my guess is that there's a kind of positive feed back loop happening, the more they have issues and fall out to deal with the less time they have to spend on better political craft and deeper organising, and the less time they have for that, the more issues and fall out they have to deal with.

                Is it likely that the public will see the changes in the new selection process, or will have to wait and see how selection goes next year?

                Reply
            • weka 8.1.1.2.1.3
              4 May 2025 at 10:56 am

              Stats are stats. We are asked to look at trends in support not single points or events. That is what I have done.

              Yes, looking at trends is more meaninful than single elections or polls. But what you have then done is taken 3 election results and applied analysis to them as if that analysis is fact. That's what is being pushed back against. RP has explained in the post and several comment what the problem with that.

              I'm not a political scientist but it seems clear the policy position of the Greens is attracting significant support, ie the highest election result they have ever achieved and this is post Davidson's statement to Hannah Spierer outside Posie Parker's rally.

              I'm also not a a political scientist, but afaik, it's difficult to pin down why people's votes change unless you actually poll them on that. People vote for all sorts of different reasons and that changes over time. This applies to L/G swing voters.

              I doubt that MD's actions around the KJK rally had much effect on polling, especially given Ardern has resigned a few months earlier and left swing voters were getting to grips with Hipkins. (the problem the left has with GC pol is the shift over longer time to the right. Afaik I know no-one in NZ is polling on that clearly yet).

              If, as some claim, diversity is the reason the Greens are not disciplined enough, the answer surely can’t be more white men.

              That's not the claim. The claim is the GP are not disciplined enough. Diversity isn't doing that, choices made within the party are. Obviously MPs who aren't white and male can be disciplined. The discipline issues imo arise from the party culture.

              Reply
              • Psycho Milt …
                4 May 2025 at 12:52 pm

                Yes. I don't care about diversity or the ethnic background of Green MPs, I just want list candidates not to reserve their god-given right to present political opponents with a handy stick they can beat Green Party with.

                Reply
                • weka …
                  4 May 2025 at 1:12 pm

                  Doyle doubling down in the Newsroom a few days ago. Still making his personal politics more important than the party. Which in and of itself doesn’t matter. But it matters to the extent that the Greens haven’t learned much from the fallout last month.

                  Reply
                  • Psycho Milt …
                    4 May 2025 at 4:11 pm

                    I read that. Always hilarious when people peddling the most egregious aspects of Queer Theory that batshit-crazy academics in the USA can come up with squawk about "imported culture wars" the moment anyone has a problem with it. And he had nothing to say about how any of this assists the political programme he's supposedly in Parliament to help promote.

                    Reply

Leave a Comment