Chloe Swarbrick steps up for 2017

Written By: - Date published: 12:40 pm, November 12th, 2016 - 46 comments
Categories: election 2017, greens, twitter - Tags:

Media coverage,

RNZ

Herald

Stuff

 

 

46 comments on “Chloe Swarbrick steps up for 2017 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Sacha 1
    12 November 2016 at 12:56 pm

    Here’s the Wireless interview mentioned in the RNZ story linked above: http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/why-chloe-swarbrick-is-sticking-with-politics

  2. The Real Matthew 2
    12 November 2016 at 12:59 pm

    What is Chloe’s path to getting into parliament?

    She won’t win an electorate and can’t surpass any males on the party list. With the Green’s party vote going nowhere the only way she gets in is if she’s ranked above an existing female MP or if an existing female MP retires. Are there any rumours regarding a female Green MP retiring?

    The nomination of Swarbick is also symptomatic of the Green’s inability to diversify their list. The last thing the Green’s need is another whiter than milk bottle female with no real life experience. In an increasingly diverse country the Green party is becoming increasingly distanced from the electorate, relegating it’s potential vote to a small voting block of urban white liberal elites.

    Though Swarbick has undoubted political talent this is the wrong move at the wrong time.

    • Lanthanide 2.1
      12 November 2016 at 1:08 pm

      Why can’t she surpass any males on the party list?

      • Pasupial 2.1.1
        12 November 2016 at 1:24 pm

        The placings on the GP list are determined by voting members (after consultation with local delegates). But there are also mechanisms to ensure near gender parity (plus regional and Maori representation). However, the way he phrases it, this doesn’t seem to be what TRM means. I certainly wouldn’t call Turei, Roche, or Davidson, a; “whiter than milk bottle female with no real life experience”.

        There was something about this on NRT yesterday, but I’ve not been able to get there on my browser today to get the link.

        • Lanthanide 2.1.1.1
          12 November 2016 at 1:30 pm

          I knew all that.

          I think TRM is making crap up / doesn’t understand the rules.

          • weka 2.1.1.1.1
            12 November 2016 at 1:47 pm

            I think he means that she can’t take the place of a male MP. But it’s a red herring. It assumes that the point of her standing is to become an MP ahead of others.

            • Lanthanide 2.1.1.1.1.1
              12 November 2016 at 2:05 pm

              It’s an odd way to say it, because if she were ranked at list position 7, there’d be a male at list position 8, and she would have “surpassed” them.

              • weka …
                12 November 2016 at 2:30 pm

                I agree.

              • The Real Matthew …
                12 November 2016 at 6:33 pm

                If Chloe is ranked at #7 she will be above existing MP’s unless there are several retirements.

                I’m just struggling to see a route into parliament for her.

                • Lanthanide …
                  12 November 2016 at 8:09 pm

                  …and?

                  The Greens rank their party list by votes from all the members.

                  If the members decide some sitting MPs aren’t doing very well, they’ll give them lower list placings. Similarly if the members think that Chloe has got a lot to offer, they may rank her higher than existing MPs.

                  It’s not really up to the MPs or the party leadership, its the members who decide.

                  • Pasupial …
                    13 November 2016 at 12:52 pm

                    The important thing I left out yesterday is that age is also adjusted on the list. It is for a minimum of 10% under 35 (though it is the lowest priority). Since the 2014 ranking, both Genter and Hughes have aged past this age, so there is a likelihood that anyone under 35 will have a relatively easy time getting an electable list ranking next year.

                    Jack McDonald is likely to be highly ranked due to adjustments (24 year old Māori, who was 20th on the list in 2014). Swarbrick has a decent chance at being the second (as a 23 year old female), as many of the younger candidates from the last list are now over 35.

    • weka 2.2
      12 November 2016 at 1:15 pm

      The Greens get a lot of list votes in Auckland. Even if Swarbrick doesn’t become an MP, her running in Auckland, with the kind of presence and reach she has, is going to be beneficial for the list vote alone.

      There are plenty of people who stand for the Greens with no hope of becoming an MP. The cause is bigger than personal wins, and it takes time to work one’s way up the list (will be interested to see how she fares on that).

      By diversify, I assume you mean class and ethnicity (gender is already covered). I agree in general, although I’m not sure that Swarbrick on her own means there will not be more diversity. They want that young, urban vote so she’s a good choice for that, but let’s see what they do with the rest of the Auckland electorates.

      Who would you like to see instead?

    • Macro 2.3
      12 November 2016 at 1:36 pm

      Let me guess – Real Matthew is white male and a grey beard…
      None of those in politics ….

  3. mauī 3
    12 November 2016 at 1:05 pm

    I think she’ll be good for the millenial vote. But the Greens are probably doing ok with that demographic anyway. Be great if they could nab a high profile green business person too.

    • Matthew Whitehead 3.1
      12 November 2016 at 2:26 pm

      Uh, the Greens already have plenty of people with business experience.

      • mauī 3.1.1
        12 November 2016 at 2:52 pm

        The public doesn’t know that. Throw in a well liked, popular business person and perceptions would change.

        • Chess Player 3.1.1.1
          12 November 2016 at 3:17 pm

          Only to a degree, and this is the problem.
          Whatever green business perspective is in the camp tends to get marginalised once Turei or Browning says something odd-ball or left field.
          What they say gets the media spotlight and the green business stuff gets missed.
          This has been the case for many years, and I believe it’s why the Greens have plateued in support.

          I would, however, be interesting in who you think a well liked, popular green business person would be?

          • Garibaldi 3.1.1.1.1
            12 November 2016 at 3:53 pm

            I’m a proud supporter of the Greens. Let’s face it, they’re the only ones with any integrity. However it strikes me that all are not happy in their camp because they are not firing at all well this year. It would be good to know why.

        • Chuck 3.1.1.2
          12 November 2016 at 5:34 pm

          In a recent business survey James Shaw rated very highly.

          Julie Ann Genter and Metiria Turei rated above Andrew Little, who was near the bottom.

          https://www2.deloitte.com/nz/en/pages/about-deloitte/articles/mood-of-the-boardroom.html

        • Matthew Whitehead 3.1.1.3
          12 November 2016 at 9:30 pm

          Ah, so you’re talking about perceived business acumen. That’s a little different and is more down to how the media chooses to cover the Greens and whether they’re given credit for initiatives that help businesses, rather than whether they actually understand business.

          James Shaw is a popular, well-liked businessperson. I’m not sure what more you want in terms of candidates to change that. Turei was also a highly sucessful lawyer before she went back into politics, so it’s difficult to get a more businessy leadership team in a Green political party.

          • Chuck 3.1.1.3.1
            13 November 2016 at 8:19 am

            No doubt that’s a major reason James Shaw won the male leadership role.

            Will be interesting to see how the Greens do next year, as you say they have made an effort to be seen as more business savvy.

            Chloe Swarbrick will add to that narrative over time, most certainty not the “old style” Green candidate (activist type).

  4. Cinny 4
    12 November 2016 at 2:53 pm

    Go get em darling, more power to you. Well done Greens, great move, excellent candidate

    Proud of you Chloe

  5. save nz 5
    12 November 2016 at 5:16 pm

    Ive pointed this out in open Mike

    Chloe was propelled by National loving Spinoff and many blogs into the limelight and her fresh face and youth may have mean’t some people failed to examine her policies which are more Green Lite, development focused and ACT (for the Mayoral race).

    I sense that their might be conflict by old school Greens voters who actually care about the environment. Thinking that saving the environment is about a cycle lane in Auckland, making poorer areas and people pay congestion charges and “help a developer, help save poverty”. Now it’s trains for the very rich, very migrant North Shore in Auckland.

    Chloe isn’t a person out there in the forests saving the environment, doing community service or protesting against the establishment.

    This is someone who is the youth member of the establishment who studies law, has a social marketing firm, fashion line and is the darling of the MSM.

    It’s possible she might get an electorate seat in Auckland, but equally possible she might come second or third, and instead alienate existing Green party voters who really believe in the Green movement and don’t want to be represented by Developer friendly Green Lite.

    Homeowners might stay at home and the Greens have never fielded a candidate who got the youth vote because they think some tick box approach will get them.

    Nope think Bernie Sanders, who would think that an oldie could get millions of young supporters. Pushing a 22 year old and saying she’s young give her your vote is insulting to youth.

    Sue Bradford would be a better choice for anti-establishment and authenticity.

    Or David Cunliffe as a new Green Leader. In my view Labour and Greens would defiantly beat Key, if Greens had Cunliffe as a leader and worked with Little and Labour.

    Coming third in Auckland with record low voter turn out shows that Chloe activated nobody new to vote, the opposite less people voted.

    With all the dirty politics coming out, it seems that the MSM sniffing around and cheerleading Green washing, developer friendly and anti homeowner Chloe could be just what they want to keep the Green vote low and Natz in power.

    Get rid of the aged sea fearing Goblins who want Heritage and regulation and roll up pint sized karate kicking developer lovin marketeers. What could go wrong?

    I’m just pleased I own my own house well above sea level (sarc) if this is the candidate the Greens are offering me.

    However my kids ain’t got a brighter future if this is the Green strategy to win. I’m worried for them.

    • gsays 5.1
      13 November 2016 at 12:24 pm

      Hi save nz, while I don’t have an opinion on chloe swarbrick, i do share your reservations on the greens.

      It seems the eternal political compromise; principles vs popularity.

      Greens over the last few electoral cycles seem to have gone for popularity and gone quiet on a few principles eg pot legislation, relatively silent on social justice issues.
      I get why, I just disagree.
      There seems to be a ‘centering’ of the greens in that crowded area occupied by all other parties bar act and mana.

      Ms swarbricks appointment also is an example of the blurring of the left/ right divide in politics.

  6. james 6
    12 November 2016 at 8:26 pm

    Will be interesting.

    But I think she will be shown out of her depth very very quickly.

    I think this is more a populist move than anything. But – hey cannot be a bad thing having new blood with a fresh look on life coming into any party.

    Still – I would have voted for her over mad as a hatter penny for mayor.

    • Chess Player 6.1
      13 November 2016 at 5:52 pm

      She should have gone to TOP.
      In TOP they will all be new politicians not old school has beens with pensions to protect.
      It will be fine for the TOP party reps to appear naive or different to other politicians as that’s part of what appeals to people – they are NOT just politicians. She could get away with naivety there.

  7. Peter 7
    12 November 2016 at 10:13 pm

    Do we someone else with a law degree (and thus an overwhelming expectation of entitlement) and no life experience in parliament?

    Her political game plan is very evident: capitalise on her youth, being female and fairly good looking to work her way into a well-paid lifelong political career.

    • Brendon Harre 7.1
      13 November 2016 at 12:43 am

      Hey that is a bit cynical. Chloe is also intelligent, well researched, hard working and with social media skills that any political party which is having difficulty getting its message out to the public would die for. Also in the entire Mayoral electoral campaign she showed a remarkable even temperament that bodes well for the future. Good on her for giving it go. We need good people to be willing to engage in politics….

    • Drowsy M. Kram 7.2
      13 November 2016 at 12:53 am

      What a worthless, pathetic putdown – is it genuine?

  8. Ad 8
    13 November 2016 at 7:05 am

    Chloe is going to be an excellent candidate, and a really easy candidate to promote and manage …… for all the reasons the moisties above like Peter, SaveNZ, REealMatthew hate:

    – white
    – good looking
    – talented
    – well educated
    – non-MSM savvy
    – commercial sense

    to which I would add:
    – charismatic
    – understands policy
    – understands business
    – Auckland based
    – independent $$ to the game
    – hoovered votes on her first try

    There’s very few of those in any of our parties currently.

    I’m glad she’s standing.

    At least one of our household will be voting Greens next year, in no small part because of exciting positive talent like Chloe Swarbrick.

    • save nz 8.1
      13 November 2016 at 11:24 am

      @AD I’d say your tick box assessment of Chloe does not really gel with the Greens movement.

      Her time in Auckland showed that she did not increase the vote and came a very distant third to Labour and National candidates. The Mayoral election is a lot less competitive than the General election and there is a lot more scrutiny.

      Integrity, ethics, community service, authenticity, morality, down to earth, demonstrated and real care of the environment, understanding of the environment are what the Green voters are looking for, AD your list of her attributes is more true for Natz voters …

      i.e. commercially savvy – she does not own a house and can not afford one – so as well as not being a factor for the Green voter, her social media business is not doing that well…. We are not talking some entrepreneurial start up person who make millions of their own bat and in a Green area…

      Did any one actually look at the facts before deciding that she’s a good green candidate???? Maybe hire her as a social media consultant (even then wouldn’t you go with someone who has more demonstrated results in that field) but fielding her as a Green candidate is looking fake.

      I haven’t even got onto the discrepancy between developer friendly NIMBY hating Aucklander vs Aucklander Green movement and their often well heeled home owning voters. (Thing Heritage types in Devonport and Waiheke Island organic types who opposed the unitary plan but vote Green).

      The types who climb the Kauri tree and try to save it from developers vs Chloe who thinks that by some sort of trickle down we can remove all the regulation in the unitary plan and RMA to help developers cut down the tree so that parts of Auckland can get more houses.

      Chloe is a MASSIVE gamble and there is already significant group think in the Greens that stop their growth to the centre (so if there is a whiff of anti homeowner, developer focused Chloe going around telling Aucklander’s that it is their fault she does not have a house) might be alienating to a large part of their Auckland base).

      • Ad 8.1.1
        13 November 2016 at 11:31 am

        Nope you should have seen James Shaw at the Labour Party conference last weekend. Spoke straight after Little, and smoked him. She’s with Shaw, and Shaw is the future. She will break their Auckland vote over 17% with the machine she brings, and Shaw will pull 20% out of Wellington.

        The commie Greens represented by the other co-leader in Dunedin don’t pull shit above their 7% core.

        She’s what’s needed to win.

  9. Thinkerr 9
    13 November 2016 at 8:15 am

    Chloe Swarbrick will be a great companion to Jacinda Ardern and, IMHO, Nikki Kaye; three women who, regardless of political stance, ought to be respected by all for their principled approached to playing the game. Heaven knows, there’s little enough of it coming from the old, white males in the government, these days.

    I just hope that, before assuming her own campaign responsibilities, Swarbrick bottles her electioneering formula and passes it around where its needed. It could be the answer to biased newspapers and the CrosbyTextors.

    Go Chloe!

  10. DoublePlusGood 10
    13 November 2016 at 10:59 am

    Well, hopefully this is a learning experience for her about what Green principles actually are, because she’s some distance away from those at current – at the moment she’s somewhat more in the Liberal Democrat kind of space. Of course, it’s quite possible that Shaw and Turei want to basically become blue-green, in which case Chloe will fit in perfectly and I’m sure they’ll do well electorally, at the cost of the whole point of the party in the first place

    • weka 10.1
      13 November 2016 at 12:17 pm

      Shaw and Turei aren’t the party. Yes they have influence, but they don’t get to choose whether to make the party blue/green, even if they wanted to (and I see zero evidence that either of them do).

      People are saying quite a bit about Chloe’s politics and world views. Might be time to start putting up some evidence so we can see for ourselves. And no, that she is media savvy, or middle class, or a lawyer, isn’t evidence of politics.

      • Ad 10.1.1
        13 November 2016 at 12:30 pm

        Her Mayoral policy platforms are worth going back to, if they are still up.

        • weka 10.1.1.1
          13 November 2016 at 12:53 pm

          someone else can do the leg work if they want 😉 Myself, in the meantime, I trust the Green Party, and I’m pragmatic about the urbanisation and dehippyfying of the party, and accept that this is what is possible for now and that as the Greens mainstream further, a space will open up on the edge of the next cool thing to arise.

          • save nz 10.1.1.1.1
            14 November 2016 at 11:27 am

            @ Weka I’m just concerned that urbanisation and dehippyfying of the party is going to do the same to the Greens as Labour has done to itself with it’s Rogernomics experiment. Ie erode and extinguish their voter base, get rid of their founding ideas and lead to extreme disappointment from voters who stay at home.

            Just at the wrong time too, when Green is already mainstream, they tell potential voters instead to build on everything, they are a NIMBY and PPP and tax walking are good compromises. You’re a xenophobe if you don’t think that we should not be building more apartments for our articifial burgeoning population – the third highest in the world after Israel and Lichtenstein.

            Can someone get Jeanette back to use puppet theatre to show the Greens leadership what sustainable Green policy used to look like?

            Clearly SkyPath and unitary plan support is the Green version of Rogernomics…. Rogernomics not and never was popular among voters but did spawn a major right wing party…

            I’m pointing this out because we are a year out from the election so there is time for the Greens to reconsider and think about what they are doing, blowing their chances away… If I can pick such obvious holes as a pro Green person, what do you think the Natz are going to put out about her come election time?

            Look at the posts, it’s the people who vote for others that like her. No wonder everyone is so cheerful that the ‘commies’ have such a great catch!

            It’s the Greens election and they are blowing it away… and the environment at the same time.

        • save nz 10.1.1.2
          13 November 2016 at 3:46 pm

          This just on rates, so McMansion millionaires with 20 bathrooms pay the same as their neighbour for rates with 2 bathrooms discharging or nothing… the idea from Chloe is that land should all be built on, not very sustainable, goodbye NZ, hello LA turned Singapore.. it very ACT not very Green.

          http://www.chloeforauckland.co.nz/#/housing-rates-policy/

          “Taxing improvement disincentivises development, and can incentivise land banking and speculation – in essence, holding the market and surrounding community to ransom. Ransom for land, which, had it been used effectively, could have in the meantime been used to curb our housing crisis by providing more housing, or adding to our economy by being utilised for business.

          Economically, calculating rates on a simple Land Valuation makes substantially more sense than Capital Value. But it’s not just because it incentivises development and efficient use of land (and would make it financially unsensible to speculate), but because it would cool our housing market’s over-inflated prices, reduce rents, minimise sprawl – and rates would reflect that for the most part, the result of ascending house prices is due to public and community investment: new businesses and cafes in the area, public parks, transport infrastructure and the like are all things which increase the value of a plot of land for the landowner, but are the result of other people’s (often the taxpayer’s) investment.

          I propose a rates calculation based on one thing alone:

          Land Value
          Which would ease the burden on those using their land efficiently, by balancing it out and seeing those who are not doing so – those holding the community to ransom – are paying equitably to do so. This is not a silver bullet, but in combination with the rest of my policy, leadership and vision, would enable Auckland to not only recover from its housing crisis, but generate a stable market which would economically withstand global financial downturns, and bring back to life the kiwi dream of being able to own a home.

          Council Funding
          Internationally, local governments control an average of 30% of all government’s spending; in New Zealand, recent reports show our local governments control around 11% of spending (leaving central government with 89%), less than half of the international average.

          This control of funding is a problem when we need to provide infrastructure to accommodate population growth and new housing.

          Whilst local governments are predominantly publicly perceived as responsible for the problems in their constituencies, in New Zealand, they have less resources to solve these problems than in other comparable nations. This places the broader power to fund local public projects in the hands of central government, which is less inclined to be familiar with local needs than an elected local government.

          One such example of granting Auckland Council greater discretionary funding to respond to local needs is by redistributing taxation on local expenditure. As your Mayor, I would work with central government to see Auckland Council receive taxation more in-line with international averages, allowing greater autonomy to generate truly localised solutions.”

          Yawn, yawn from youngsters, excitement from developers and fear and outrage from normal homeowners in standard housing or lifestyle blocks…

          Very very naive policy… enriching rich developers while pretending it is for the poor.

  11. save nz 11
    13 November 2016 at 3:47 pm

    Also supported Sky Path that is a PPP that taxes walkers and cyclists but not motorists, not what I would consider Green policy either.

    http://www.chloeforauckland.co.nz/#/transport-policy/

    “The Skypath’s passage in Council was a momentous occasion for all Aucklanders. For the first time, we’ll be able to walk or cycle across the Waitematā.”

    • Chess Player 11.1
      13 November 2016 at 4:49 pm

      If PPP is necessary to get the Sky Path built, then I say let’s do it.

      Otherwise the debate goes on for another 20 years – more discussion may suit Mike Lee and the rest of the long term troughers, but those dinosaurs have had their day.

      I wouldn’t consider PPP a Greens policy either – they would rather increase taxes in some other way.

      I reckon Chloe will get embroiled in all sorts of loony debates in the coming months and extract herself from the Greens. It’ll all just become too damn difficult.

      Joining Gareth Morgan would have given her a better platform to express herself, given the blue-green hybrid that will probably emerge from TOP, and also because as much as the Greens see themselves as an alternative they are really just another lot of careerists who will want to preserve their own positions.

  12. JNZ 12
    13 November 2016 at 5:42 pm

    I agree with save NZ. A lot of people I know were going crazy fangirl over Swarbrick, so I pushed my immediate bias against such inexperience to the back burner and read her policies from her mayoral bid.

    She promotes intensification as green, and her rates policy is based on the idea that rates unfairly punish those who develop their land!?!?

    Maybe she could learn something from the Greens, but more likely they both want to capitalise on each other’s success, rather than because they are actually a good fit.