Green Party announces its initial party list

91 comments on “Green Party announces its initial party list ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Karen 1

   2 April 2017 at 12:21 pm

   Good to see Marama Davidson, John Hart and Jack McDonald with high places – hopefully they retain their placings through to the next stage.
   • weka 1.1

     2 April 2017 at 12:37 pm

     +1 Interesting to see Davidson move from 16 up to 4. She’s been doing really well as a new MP.

     Here’s the 2014 List for comparison,

     Green Party 2014 Election Official List
     1. TUREI, Metiria
     2. NORMAN, Russel
     3. HAGUE, Kevin
     4. SAGE, Eugenie
     5. HUGHES, Gareth
     6. DELAHUNTY, Catherine
     7. GRAHAM, Kennedy
     8. GENTER, Julie Anne
     9. MATHERS, Mojo
     10. LOGIE, Jan
     11. CLENDON, Dave
     12. WALKER, Holly
     13. SHAW, James
     14. ROCHE, Denise
     15. BROWNING, Steffan
     16. DAVIDSON, Marama
     17. COATES, Barry
     18. HART, John
     19. KENNEDY, Dave
     20. ELLEY, Jeanette
     21. McDONALD, Jack
     22. MOORHOUSE, David
     23. ROTMANN, Sea
     24. BARLOW, Aaryn
     25. LECKINGER, Richard
     26. PERINPANAYAGAM, Umesh
     27. RUTHVEN, Susanne
     28. MOORE, Teresa
     29. LANGSBURY, Dora
     30. WOODLEY, Tane
     31. PERLEY, Chris
     32. GOLDSMITH, Rachael
     33. KELCHER, John
     34. ROGERS, Daniel
     35. WESLEY, Richard
     36. SMITHSON, Anne-Elise
     37. McALL, Malcolm
     38. FORD, Chris
     39. HUNT, Reuben

     https://home.greens.org.nz/press-releases/green-party-unveils-strong-party-list-2014-election
     • Cinny 1.1.1

       2 April 2017 at 1:04 pm

       Awesome that was interesting to compare with, three of my favourite female MP’s have climbed the list. Julie Anne Genter, Marama Davidson and Jan Logie are outstanding in Parliament.

       Once I’ve seen Labours list I can start to make a decision 😀
       • weka 1.1.1.1

         2 April 2017 at 3:57 pm

         What decision? 😆
         • Cinny 1.1.1.1.1

           2 April 2017 at 9:31 pm

           A decision that will help save our country from an environmental, social, economical and educational disaster.

           A decision for clean water among other things 😀

           My 12yrold was so pissed off today when she saw a herd of cows wadding around in the Motueka River.
           By crikey she had plenty to say about it, good on her for noticing, she loves her swimming river and wants to be a farmer one day, that kid has a gift with animals

           And I’ll be sure to consider her future and her feelings when I decide on my party vote. Kids come first, that’s why I’ll be voting Greens or Labour for my party vote this election.
           • weka 1.1.1.1.1.1

             2 April 2017 at 9:55 pm

             I was just wondering why you would be considering voting Labour then?
             • Cinny …

               3 April 2017 at 7:02 am

               Waiting to see if a certain name appears on Labours list. If it’s there I’ll be tempted to vote Labour, if not I’ll vote Greens again.

               There have been many moments during the last three years where I have felt so proud to have voted Greens, it’s a good feeling.

               Person vote will go to Damien O’Connor.
               • weka …

                 3 April 2017 at 2:35 pm

                 Ah, that makes sense, thanks.
       • Mordecai 1.1.1.2

         2 April 2017 at 10:35 pm

         Once the gender quota kicks in, Logie will be one who will drop down the list to make way for more men.
         • left_forward 1.1.1.2.1

           3 April 2017 at 1:10 pm

           A little bit afraid Mordecai?
           • Mordecai 1.1.1.2.1.1

             4 April 2017 at 9:31 am

             Not at all…just pointing out the facts.
2. Antoine 2

   2 April 2017 at 12:23 pm

   So anything up to about 18 is potentially winnable in 2017, right?

   Where can we get bios of those in places 1-18, who are not currently MPs?

   A.
   • Matthew Whitehead 2.1

     2 April 2017 at 2:54 pm

     Yes, 18 is the outside edge of winnable on current polling, so if all in the winnable positions make the final list in roughly the same places, (this is the “semifinal” list, and it has another set of voting and gender interpolation to go through just yet) then we could see Leilani in parliament if the greens double up on women at any point in the first 18. The Greens would have to win more ground to get to 18 and so far more modest gains seem likely, with 15 MPs being the minimum, which might or might not net us Golriz depending on whether she’s bumped up or down on the final list (the first 18 have an extra woman compared to the way the final lists usually work out, so it’s entirely possible that Golriz will be #17 and Leilani #19)

     It’s also worth noting that Greens do retire relatively frequently as most are in Parliament as public service and not for a career, hence Marama Davidson at #16 and Barry Coates at #17 are currently in Parliament despite only 14 Green MPs. What that means is that if the Greens bag a high number like 17 MPs, then potentially people as high as position 20 could maybe get into Parliament if the Greens continue turning over at a respectable rate. (2 MPs retired this sitting of Parliament, but Holly Walker declined to join the Party Caucus when she had the opportunity, hence Barry Coates)

     I would be pretty surprised if the Green Party didn’t gain MPs.

     As a member I have bios but I’m not sure if they’re non-confidential yet. They’ve clearly been leaked to non-members already, (unless Bomber is still a Green despite cheerleading for TOP) but I’m not going to leak them any further until and unless we’re allowed to release them.

     What I will do later is give a brief description.
3. mickysavage 3

   2 April 2017 at 12:25 pm

   It aint my party but …

   I have always found Dave Clendon and Denise Roche to be very thoughtful contributors to politics and I hope they both make it back in.
   • weka 3.1

     2 April 2017 at 12:38 pm

     Roche is in the same placing as last time, Clendon has dropped five paces (2014 list posted above).
     • Matthew Whitehead 3.1.1

       2 April 2017 at 3:00 pm

       Worth noting: Being an incumbent gives you a significant advantage, so maintaining your list rank after being newly elected is actually bad if you’re not already in the top ten, it means nobody has really taken notice of what you’ve done in Parliament.
   • Pete George 3.2

     2 April 2017 at 12:54 pm

     Interesting that Roche beat Swarbrick in the contest to stand for Greens in Auckland but has been placed below her on the list.

     Perhaps that’s due to different people involved in the electorate selection.

     Some media have promoted Hayley Holt but she has no show at 29.
     • mickysavage 3.2.1

       2 April 2017 at 1:01 pm

       Agreed I am sure there were a few strategic reasons for this. The last thing the Greens would want is for a contest that Swarbrick looks like she might have a chance in but then losing party vote.
       • Matthew Whitehead 3.2.1.1

         2 April 2017 at 3:13 pm

         If Swarbrick stays at 13, (which interpolation of the current list would have her doing) she’s basically a cert for Parliament.

         The processes for the list and for electorate selection are really different. You have to impress party officials to make selection, but you need to impress party members to make high on the list. She actually made it higher than I would have expected given it’s usually non-members who are more impressed with her, but that may be members factoring in her profile to their voting.
4. mauī 4

   2 April 2017 at 12:40 pm

   Personally I would prefer if Clendon and Sage dropped off the list, they’ve had their turn. I would rather see new people in there bringing some more vibrancy into politics.
   • dukeofurl 4.1

     2 April 2017 at 1:51 pm

     What is this thing you call ‘vibrancy’ -is it things that rattle in the wind
     • mauī 4.1.1

       2 April 2017 at 2:24 pm

       its an emotive term, feel free to stick to your dull politics though.
       • dukeofurl 4.1.1.1

         2 April 2017 at 6:09 pm

         Pleeeese.!
         You would be sucker for “Brighter Future” or even other catchy ones like ‘Drain the swamp’ or ‘repeal and replace’
   • Matthew Whitehead 4.2

     2 April 2017 at 3:25 pm

     You may have a point about Clendon, but Eugenie Sage actually did a lot of work that flew under the radar of people who weren’t watching carefully, and I would expect her high position on this list. It’s also important to have south islanders in Caucus so that the Greens grow the vote in areas other than Auckland and Wellington, which are already very Green.

     That domestic violence leave bill that’s just been a big win for the Greens? That was hers.

     It’s good to have candidates with high profiles, but there’s nothing wrong with having hard workers who haven’t gotten the press they deserve for their achievements, too.

     If I were pushing people further down the list, I’d probably start with Denise Roche.
5. mary_a 5

   2 April 2017 at 1:11 pm

   I’m still not comfortable with James Shaw being co leader. Can’t quite put my finger on it, but to me he comes across as a Green/Blue, leaning more towards blue than green somehow. I get the impression he’s a plant, to deliberately infiltrate NZ Greens. I’m being paranoid I guess …. but that niggly feeling keeps niggling away …

   If NZ Greens want to balance the leadership gender equation, then I think Gareth Hughes would have been a more suitable replacement for Russel Norman, instead of Shaw. Hughes and Meteria Turei would have made a compatible combination.

   Great to see Julie Ann Genter and Marama Davidson in places three and four respectively. Both are strong MPs, with good futures in Green politics ahead of them.
   • dukeofurl 5.1

     2 April 2017 at 1:56 pm

     Metira Turei came from a major legal firm as well ( Queen St lawyers!), was she a ‘plant’ too ?
     Shaw is from a big accountancy firm. Surely its ability that counts.
   • Antoine 5.2

     2 April 2017 at 1:59 pm

     A plant by who???!

     > Hughes and Meteria Turei would have made a compatible combination.

     Was ‘compatible’ a typo for ‘unelectable’?

     I do agree with you on JAG though

     A.
   • Sacha 5.3

     2 April 2017 at 2:09 pm

     Green party members voted for Shaw as their leader. Hardly ‘infiltration’.
   • Matthew Whitehead 5.4

     2 April 2017 at 3:16 pm

     He just speaks in a more business-friendly way because he’s used to selling Green ideas to business. He and Metiria make a good team as they speak to different kinds of voters.
   • weka 5.5

     2 April 2017 at 3:59 pm

     Have a listen to his maiden speech in parliament and see if that gives you a different picture of who he is.
6. Sacha 6

   2 April 2017 at 2:13 pm

   Really pleased to see fresh talent like Jack McDonald, John Hart and Chloe Swarbrick in winnable list positions in this initial ranking, and others a few places down who I’d love to see as MPs too.
   • Matthew Whitehead 6.1

     2 April 2017 at 3:33 pm

     John Hart actually would have been in Parliament last term if Barry Coates hadn’t took up that second vacancy, FYI. He’ll be fresh to Parliament, but he’s been a prominent candidate before. 🙂
7. pdm 7

   2 April 2017 at 3:10 pm

   As an outsider it is difficult to understand how Turei ranks ahead of Shaw.

   Gender perhaps.
   • weka 7.1

     2 April 2017 at 4:38 pm

     I’d guess seniority. Plus it comforts those who are unsure of Shaw 😉
     • Matthew Whitehead 7.1.1

       2 April 2017 at 4:43 pm

       Actually the female co-leader has always been first on the list since the split with the Alliance, (as far as I can tell, Jeanette won an electorate in 2005 so Wikipedia doesn’t record her relative list position for that election, but every election since the female co-leader has been 1st) even when Russel Norman was the senior co-leader compared to Metiria.

       I believe it’s reasonably fair to put the party in a position where if it has an odd number of MPs more of them will be female, as this helps balance out Parliament a bit against other parties who put far too many men in the winnable positions, and when you alternate genders on your list like the Greens do, that means ranking a woman first.
       • weka 7.1.1.1

         2 April 2017 at 5:12 pm

         Is that convention rather than rule?
         • dukeofurl 7.1.1.1.1

           2 April 2017 at 5:35 pm

           Isnt it part of the gender balance rule, for every 5 candidates at lest 2 women and 2 men.
           or as the Rules state
           5.2.1 The balance criteria for the list ranking process are as follows:
           (i) Maori – a minimum of 10% of candidates shall be of Maori descent;
           (ii) Gender – a maximum of 60% of candidates shall be male; a maximum of 60% of candidates shall be female;
           (iii) Region – a minimum of 40% of candidates shall be from the North Island; a
           minimum of 20% of candidates shall be from the South Island;
           (iv) Age – a minimum of 10% of candidates shall be under 35;

           The draft list provided is top heavy with women candidates, at position 6 you have 5 women, minimum male is 40%, its only by position 10 that you get to 40% male.

           [put up a link or a reference please – weka]
           • One Anonymous Bloke 7.1.1.1.1.1

             2 April 2017 at 5:53 pm

             @Weka It’s from a pdf held by the Electoral Commission: “Candidate selection and list ranking procedures 2014.”

             I see the sewer holds a copy in .doc format, but I’d strongly advise against downloading anything with any David Farrar stains on it.
             • weka …

               2 April 2017 at 6:17 pm

               Ta.
           • dukeofurl 7.1.1.1.1.2

             2 April 2017 at 6:06 pm

             Surely you know all this ?
             But for others its at this site under party rules/green party
             http://www.elections.org.nz/parties-candidates/registered-political-parties/register-political-parties
             • weka …

               2 April 2017 at 6:16 pm

               Even if I did (and I didn’t know where you got that from), people read here who won’t know. It’s a curtesy to put a link if you are going to cut and paste, for readers, people you are talking to and the place you copy from. Hence I used a moderator comment rather than a person one 🙂
               • One Anonymous Bloke …

                 2 April 2017 at 6:21 pm

                 Plenty of people don’t like links to pdfs, though.
                 • weka …

                   2 April 2017 at 6:39 pm

                   True, and strange they don’t have html versions.
           • Matthew Whitehead 7.1.1.1.1.3

             2 April 2017 at 11:16 pm

             This list hasn’t yet been adjusted to follow those rules. That’s why it’s the initial list rather than the final list.

             This is the delegates initial impressions (with feedback from the branches incorporated) on how all the List candidates performed, with no adjustments. The members will vote based on those recommendations, those results will be tabulated, and then last of all the executive will re-order them as little as possible to ensure the list fits the selection rules in a way that doesn’t undermine the party.
             • Antoine …

               2 April 2017 at 11:52 pm

               So women will need to move down the list?
               • Matthew Whitehead …

                 3 April 2017 at 12:26 am

                 Possibly, it depends how strict the Executive want to be in gender alternation, but technically with a bit of re-ordering you could still keep all the people in the top 20 within the top 20 while still meeting all the necessary criteria, but yes, some of the men would probably need to move up into the first 5 and second 10. (ie. into positions 2, 4, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20)

                 I think in the past what they’ve generally done is alternated genders generally, but occassionally put two people of the same gender in a row on the list and then gone back to alternating. It seems likely that they’ll do that here so that they don’t need to bump any of the top 18 out of the top 18, assuming the members endorse all of those choices in the upcoming vote, of course.

                 If they did that on the current, list, it would probably look something like this:

                 1 Metiria Turei
                 2 James Shaw
                 3 Julie Anne Genter
                 4 Gareth Hughes
                 5 Marama Davidson
                 6 Jack McDonald
                 7 Eugenie Sage
                 8 Barry Coates
                 9 Jan Logie
                 10 Kennedy Graham
                 11 Mojo Mathers
                 12 John Hart
                 13 Chlöe Swarbrick
                 14 David Clendon
                 15 Denise Roche
                 16 Golriz Ghahraman
                 17 Teanau Tuiono
                 18 Leilani Tamu
                 (and so on for less electable positions)
       • solkta 7.1.1.2

         2 April 2017 at 5:57 pm

         “even when Russel Norman was the senior co-leader”

         What is this “senior co-leader” you speak of?

         “Co” means equal partners. Russel may have appeared more as the public face having the finance portfolio etc, but that didn’t make him senior.
         • Carolyn_nth 7.1.1.2.1

           2 April 2017 at 6:08 pm

           Norman was elected co-leader in 2006, but didn’t become an MP til 2008. Turei was elected co-leader in 2009. So, she had more parliamentary experience than Norman.
           • solkta 7.1.1.2.1.1

             2 April 2017 at 6:55 pm

             That wouldn’t make her “senior co-leader” either. Just the Co-leader with more experience. “Co” means equal partners.
             • Carolyn_nth …

               2 April 2017 at 6:57 pm

               That’s true. But when Norman became co-leader, he was an unknown relatively, and fairly inexperienced. And the list placings are separate from the co-leader roles. So I would imagine there would have been a number of factors considered for the list placings.
         • Matthew Whitehead 7.1.1.2.2

           2 April 2017 at 11:10 pm

           When it was Russel and Metiria leading together, he had been leader longer. That’s all “senior” means, it doesn’t imply that either one is any more or less leader- they’re a team, that’s the whole point of having co-leaders as opposed to simply having a leaderless caucus.

           The Greens have two co-leaders, but inevitably one is the more experienced as they tend to try to stagger any leadership vacancies.

           My point is that Meyt being first on the list isn’t about the fact that she’s been a leader (and an MP) longer than Shaw, it’s about making a statement that sometimes equality means letting women take the lead.
       • Wainwright 7.1.1.3

         2 April 2017 at 6:03 pm

         There is a Wiki page for party lists which shows Jeanette was #1 in 2005:
         https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_lists_in_the_New_Zealand_general_election,_2005#Green_Party
         • Matthew Whitehead 7.1.1.3.1

           2 April 2017 at 11:06 pm

           Cheers. I figured she probably was, I was just looking at the 2005 General Election page instead which doesn’t contain that data. 🙂
   • Robert Guyton 7.2

     2 April 2017 at 4:52 pm

     “As an outsider…”
     Pffft!
     As a rabidly anti-Green troll, you mean, piddum.
     I’ve read your comments here and elsewhere over the years. Like the disgraced Keeping Stock, you slag off the Greens constantly.
   • Carolyn_nth 7.3

     2 April 2017 at 5:35 pm

     Why would you assume a guy who has been in parliament for 1 term, and co-leader for less than that, should have seniority over someone who has been an MP since 2002, and co-leader since 2009?

     Gender perhaps?

     I have heard Turei does quite a bit behind the scenes management wise. Plus she must have a better idea of how the systems work than a relative newby?
     • Psycho Milt 7.3.1

       3 April 2017 at 6:26 am

       For two equally-ranked positions, “seniority” is simply a matter of who’s been in the position the longest. It implies nothing along the lines of additional rank or authority.
8. pdm 8

   2 April 2017 at 4:52 pm

   So MW ability is irrelevant – is that what you mean when you say `it helps balance out Parliament’?
   • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1

     2 April 2017 at 5:12 pm

     If ability were relevant in the way that’s dribbling down your chin, you would have to explain Nick Smith, Gerry Brownlee, Todd Barclay and Simon Bridges to name but a few.

     Now wipe your chin.
   • Carolyn_nth 8.2

     2 April 2017 at 7:09 pm

     What is MW?

     In a democracy, MPs are there to represent the needs and wants of the diverse communities in a country. So it’s not just about general political skills, but also about whether there are MPs with an understanding of diverse people.

     Electorate MPs are not all equal in terms of general political skills and understanding. But voters in an electorate vote for the person they think will do the best for their community/ies.

     We do need a diverse group of MPs. It’s bad enough that too many don’t seem to care much for those struggling on low incomes – at least in the current Nat-led government.
   • Matthew Whitehead 8.3

     2 April 2017 at 11:30 pm

     Are you addressing me with my initials? I don’t mind, it’s just not entirely clear seeing you didn’t reply to the post I think you’re taking issue with.

     I think that ability is relevant, and I think that as long as we have less than 50% women in Parliament we will be skipping over women whose abilities are as good as or better than some of the men in Parliament, and likewise for other demographics, which we should represent roughly accurately. I also know it’s important to have diverse perspectives in Parliament, (ie. that representation is about having a Parliament that looks a bit like NZ as well as listens to NZ) and that if we don’t let enough women in we’ll end up with misogynist or male-centric legislation purely because there won’t have been enough MPs in the right places to have made a difference. It doesn’t have to be exact.

     I’m fine with have more men every so often if there’s a glut in qualified men for a particular term of parliament, so long as there are also terms where we have more women. (Which has of course never happened yet, so clearly we need to take more measures to ensure more qualified women take their rightful place in Parliament) I’m fine with having more than 90% straight people so long as sometimes there’s more than 10% queer people, and so on for various other demographics. I understand it’s hard to balance demographics with picking qualified people and it doesn’t always need to be exact, but an effort does need to be made. I just wish more parties would sincerely try, as they would find that they’re attracting new talent (and probably, better talent) that they wouldn’t otherwise find if they really make a positive effort to include different types of candidates.

     Which, coincidentally, is why this initial list is so top-heavy with women. Because the Green Party is the only Party that’s giving qualified women truly equal priority at representing their communities right now, it’s attracting some very talented women, so many in fact that there’s no way to put all of them into easily electable positions.
9. weka 9

   2 April 2017 at 5:24 pm

   As an aside, I’d just like to say I don’t want Aucklanders running NZ. Unless they’re Marama Davidson 😉

   Seriously though, it’s a tricky issue for democracy. Should the place with the most people have the most say? What happens when that gets too top heavy? How would Aucklanders work for the good of the rural SI?
   • dukeofurl 9.1

     2 April 2017 at 5:42 pm

     Thats where a large part of Green votes are.

     Greens list ranking rules say minimum 20% from South island but could be a bit higher.
     • weka 9.1.1

       2 April 2017 at 6:14 pm

       “Thats where a large part of Green votes are.”

       Which makes my questions even more important 🙂
     • Matthew Whitehead 9.1.2

       2 April 2017 at 11:44 pm

       Actually the South Island is only about 1 million people in population, so it’s somewhere between that 20% minimum criteria and a quarter of the overall population in terms of what the fair average representation for South Islanders would be. (probably closer to the 20% minimum tbqh) If the current population trends continue, South Islanders would actually be overrepresented if the rule weren’t adjusted in the future after a few more elections. Right now it’s tuned pretty much correctly.
   • Andre 9.2

     2 April 2017 at 7:02 pm

     Remind yourself of who the rural SI sends to Parliament. Do you really want more of that ilk running the country?
     • weka 9.2.1

       2 April 2017 at 7:24 pm

       By that do you mean Auckland should run the country?
       • Andre 9.2.1.1

         2 April 2017 at 7:30 pm

         I’m just wondering why you seem to want more people like Bill English, Todd Barclay, Amy Adams etc in Parliament.
         • weka 9.2.1.1.1

           2 April 2017 at 7:33 pm

           I didn’t say that. Go reread my comment.
           • Andre 9.2.1.1.1.1

             2 April 2017 at 7:36 pm

             I did read it. It comes across as derogatory of Aucklanders. So I felt like dishing it back. 🙂
             • weka …

               2 April 2017 at 7:39 pm

               Which bit is derogatory?
               • Andre …

                 2 April 2017 at 7:51 pm

                 I said it comes across as derogatory.

                 But seriously, if 1/3 of the population lives in the Auckland region, how much of the representation should be from the Auckland region? It goes around and comes around. My Auckland electorate is about to be represented by a fresh import from Palmerston North, most likely. I’m ok with that, because I expect Deborah Russell to be a valuable addition to governing the country.

                 Sometimes local issues are also of national importance. As far as I can tell, sometimes Aucklanders are part of imposing really crap answers to local problems, and sometimes they’re part of producing better answers. It’s the quality of the representative that matters a lot more than where they’re from.
               • Andre …

                 2 April 2017 at 8:18 pm

                 You made me curious so I had a quick look through the list of MPs. Given that about a third the population lives in the Auckland region, it doesn’t look to me like Aucklanders are over-represented. Either in Parliament as a whole, or in the Greens in particular. There also seemed to be remarkably few carpet-baggers among the electorate MPs.

                 The new draft Greens list doesn’t look heavy on Aucklanders. Particularly if you consider that most of the people on that list that would be considered Aucklanders right now have spent significant parts of their lives elsewhere. Like Karen says.
                 • weka …

                   2 April 2017 at 10:00 pm

                   There is a push to have more.

                   I think you are being a tad defensive on the Ak thing tbh. There’s nothing derogatory in my first comment, so not sure why you would continue to take it that way. I think they’re fair questions.
   • Karen 9.3

     2 April 2017 at 7:32 pm

     Most Aucklanders come from somewhere else originally, and even those of us who were born in Auckland do spend time in other parts of the country, and have friends and family who live elsewhere.The stereotypes about Aucklanders are just that – stereotypes often created by people who spend little time outside their own immediate area.
     • weka 9.3.1

       2 April 2017 at 7:38 pm

       That wasn’t really what I was getting at, although I think the issue still stands about the rural SI. I’m not wanting to stereotype Aucklanders or make out they are lacking in some way. What I meant was that if we elect people to represent us then it’s natural to want them to prioritise our issues.

       I don’t Iive in Ak, haven’t been there for a long time, and know a bit about the issues but I wouldn’t think it appropriate for me to make decisions about it except where they affect the wider good.

       I think the change in our lifetime of most people living in cities instead of the country will be reflected in politics.

       I’m really just bringing up these issues for discussion because there does seem to be a push towards Auckland having more representation and I’m not sure that should be a given.
       • Sacha 9.3.1.1

         3 April 2017 at 1:39 pm

         “the change in our lifetime of most people living in cities instead of the country”

         Sorry, that’s a common myth. More than half of us have lived in urban areas for the last 100 years. http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/Maps_and_geography/Geographic-areas/urban-rural-profile/historical-context.aspx#changing
         • weka 9.3.1.1.1

           3 April 2017 at 2:41 pm

           That link appears to be saying that populations of 1,000 or more are urban. That’s not what I was meaning. Plenty of towns that size I’d call rural.
           • Sacha 9.3.1.1.1.1

             3 April 2017 at 9:39 pm

             I imagine there’s some global statistical standard they follow. Rural NZ places I’ve lived in have numbered at most dozens not hundreds of residents.
             • weka …

               3 April 2017 at 11:24 pm

               According to that article there isn’t a global standard (thus it’s hard to compare). I’ve lived in small places too, but some larger towns are rural towns not urban ones.
   • Matthew Whitehead 9.4

     2 April 2017 at 11:39 pm

     I’m a little more relaxed on balancing MPs who live in particular places so long as we have a reasonable balance between lifestyles. (ie. city-based MPs, MPs from smaller towns, and rural MPs) Ideally Auckland should on average get about 25% of MPs, but the issue would be balancing everywhere else into that equation fairly once you’d made a precedent with Auckland. I think also having MMP electorates makes thinking about this a lot less necessary- Parliament is already 50% accurate to our constituencies as-is.

     Add to that List parties like the Greens keeping in a fair number of South Islanders, that will help.

     If Parliament trends towards way too many Aucklanders, there’ll be an opportunity for parties that actually connect with other areas of the country to pick up some easy votes. We saw that happen to a degree with Northland, because National was too focused on Auckland and Christchurch.
10. greg 10

    2 April 2017 at 7:57 pm

    they have a big task ahead of them to get the young voters to vote with out that the none voters will had power once again to the baby boomer property speculators i wish them all speed we need the green/labour party to perform we need a change of government a government that has the people as its number one priority.
11. DoublePlusGood 11

    2 April 2017 at 10:59 pm

    Well, let’s see:

    Get rid of:
    Chloe Swarbrick
    Hayley Holt
    – As these two are just famous for being famous. Well, Chloe is also famous for marketing ability. That works great in politics, but doesn’t actually do anything for New Zealand.
    Bridget Walsh – lives in Birmingham, and has what skills exactly that are useful for parliament? Knowing lots of musos?

    Not keen on:
    James Shaw – just way too blue.

    Bump up the list:
    Rachael Goldsmith – regularly hear of her good work in the media, in the most anti-green part of the country
    Golriz Ghahraman – is it possible to have a stronger resume for a Foreign Affairs/Human Rights portfolio?
    Robin McCandless – is sharp as. Will find solutions to problems. If he doesn’t get in, at least put him in the back office.

    Glad to see:
    David Lee – is not on the list. Should take some time out and realise that maybe idolising Gerry Brownlie is not the best life choice

    Diversity:
    They could use more Pacific Islander, East Asian and South Asian candidates.
    • Matthew Whitehead 11.1

      3 April 2017 at 12:12 am

      Is it that you’re not a fan of Leilani Tamu, or that you wanted more Pasifika Greens? I would agree with the latter, but we’re sorta limited in terms of who puts themselves forward for nomination and which people are actually qualified to go through to selection for either the List or electorates. Hopefully we get more diverse nominees in the future, the candidate pool was still pretty white tbh, and most of the non-white talent got jammed in the top half of the list for obvious reasons: they were better qualified, lol.

      I agree with you in terms of Asian candidates, though. There were some candidates with Indian or Asian roots in the mix but I think they honestly got crowded out by the combination of talent and experience that was available from other candidates, it was a super-competitive listing process and honestly there’s several people who didn’t even make it into the teens who are incredibly talented. (Dr Kerekere comes to mind, at #21)

      I actually hope all of them continue to build their resume and get re-nominated for 2020. Julie Zhu (#32) in particular will probably have a promising future, and I hope more people are nominated in the future so there’s a more diverse pool of options. Asian communities are going to be hugely relevant to politics going forward and the Greens have under-campaigned to them in favour of pakeha urban liberals.

      And yeah, I’m glad David Lee doesn’t feature in the list either. I think he only made it into Ilam because nobody else applied, and honestly, I look forward to his replacement in the Southern Ward.

      As for Chlöe and Hayley- you have to keep in mind that candidates aren’t just selected in terms of representing existing Greens. They’re also about appealing to people who don’t yet vote Green. Chlöe and Hayley both represented opportunities to reach voters who might otherwise not be as interested in voting Green, and popularity is relevant to the job as an MP- people have to feel motivated to approach you with their concerns and feel like you’re genuinely their leader. You maybe saw above that even MPs who are doing a pretty good job can get tagged as it being their time to go if people don’t perceive them as being useful, and popularity is hugely relevant to that. It’s not the whole story, but I think both of them deserved a chance to get on the list, and both got a pretty good spot considering their qualifications.
      • DoublePlusGood 11.1.1

        3 April 2017 at 12:16 am

        I would want more than just one Pasifika Green! I agree that it can be hard to find people to put themselves forward.
        • Matthew Whitehead 11.1.1.1

          3 April 2017 at 12:39 am

          IIRC Leilani was literally the only one who made it through nomination. (that isn’t to say some other people might not have stepped up, but they may not have been suitable as MPs) That said, we also got some people who are amazing representatives for what are honestly comparatively small communities in Aotearoa, like Golriz and Ricardo Menéndez, so it’s been spotty but with some really promising trends.

          I hope if Leilani doesn’t make it into Parliament before 2020 (even if the Greens don’t poll at 14.5% on election day, which is about what they need for 18 seats, it’s still possible she gets in if they get 16-17 MPs and one or two seats become vacant mid-term due to retirement from Parliament) she gets re-nominated, as she would definitely be an amazing advocate for so many different communities.
        • Karen 11.1.1.2

          3 April 2017 at 10:46 am

          Teanau Tuiono is also Pasifika – and at number 17 has a winnable position if the Green party does well.

          Also, I think you are wrong about Chloe Swarbrick – she has a lot more to offer than excellent marketing ability.
12. Cynical jester 12

    3 April 2017 at 12:14 am

    I think thats a strong list that represents the whole country and isnt auckland. The spin off however seems to think the top 14 should be in auckland. Ick

    I genuinely love this list. Here’s hoping they finally get to 15% and finally serve in cabinet #redgreen2017
13. saveNZ 13

    3 April 2017 at 3:45 pm

    Think Barry Coates is good and should be higher place. I also think he has the ability to be liked and respected by voters. More than 50% of people are against TPPA so that is all good for Barry and the Greens. He ran a great campaign and connected to a lot of people. I think he should be number three.

    Marama is respected by all, but like Metiria is she popular? Will people vote for her? The housing issue seems to have eclipsed the environmental issues by the Green party. Hope they don’t turn into a party of 2 or 3 side line issues that go off Green branding and into the respective politicians personal issues. Saying that, liked Marama’s style when she went to Israel. At least she’s an activist and courageous. Maybe focus more of that activism on the environment, too.

    I want the Greens to do well. But they need to look at what people really care about, and in particular not get bogged down in National specials like the unitary plan driving up house prices as we speak which many on the left supported due to some clever manipulation from the Natz. Most lefties still won’t admit they were played which is a bad sign.

    The other concern is that most of these people on the Greens list seem to have little public profile and even if you google them, nothing comes up! I’m on their email list and don’t know anything they are up to and read leftie blogs. Where are the Greens??? Who are the Greens???

    Even worse, some come up for the wrong reasons, in my view like pro developer Chloe Swarbrick.

    Greens seem to be seriously are lacking talented people who have actually done something environmental that the public actually know about.

    There are too many Greens high on the list who are policy makers or trendy hipsters and not genuinely environmental activists. Going to uni and doing urban planning and owning a bike, is not the same thing. That’s Labour. Key’s transformation idea was a National cycle way so it is not really a sole ‘green’ radical idea.

    We are now a Nation of Typhoid cases and poison Havelock water for God’s sake! Water is very important – everyone drinks it! So that’s a clue where the Greens might like to pop up publicly. Hopefully not blaming middle NZ voter’s for it on TV.

    Maybe hiding in there, the Greens have some radical Green ideas or even better have publicly been involved in saving something valued in their community if so, they might like to highlight it much better because what is going to happen if the Greens blow it, and the Natz get in and destroy our environment as well as the social fabric of this country for another term?
    • Sacha 13.1

      3 April 2017 at 9:56 pm

      “policy makers or trendy hipsters and not genuinely environmental activists”

      You seem to have a particular picture of what Green politics involves. The Green party have always treated NZ’s environment, society and economy as inseparable – hence some social and aconomic policies alongside those protecting rivers and fauna. https://www.greens.org.nz/policy

      I like and respect that about them.
    • Sacha 13.2

      3 April 2017 at 9:59 pm

      “Think Barry Coates is good and should be higher place.”

      Did good work before entering parliament but can you please remind me what he has been working on since.
14. the pigman 14

    4 April 2017 at 7:49 pm

    Chloe Swarbrick at 13 and Hayley Holt only no. 29?

    Ok… I guess I have more thinking to do…

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS