How do the Greens grow their base?

Written By: - Date published: 7:34 am, February 3rd, 2015 - 105 comments
Categories: election 2017, greens, leadership, Left - Tags: ,

Following on from yesterday’s discussion of the future for Labour – what next for the Greens?

I wouldn’t worry too much about their slight fall in the latest poll. It’s usual, post-election, for support to drift back to the two main parties. In my opinion there will be (far too little and far too late) a dramatic rise in support for green parties world-wide over the coming decade, as the effects of climate change become more and more evident. People will be looking for answers, and I think they will turn to the parties who have been right all along on environmental issues.

The resignation of the excellent Russel Norman from a co-leader position is both a threat and an opportunity. I don’t agree with those who believe that Meteria should step down too – I think her experience and continuity are needed (in truth I can’t make much sense of Trotter’s post at all, he and I seem to be on different political planets). I don’t have a strong opinion on who should replace Norman, but it’s an important choice for the membership. We all need the Greens to succeed and grow!

We need a new government in 2017. I see Labour under Andrew Little making a strong bid for the center ground. That, and the uncertain future of Mana, makes an opportunity for the Greens to consolidate support on the left. (I am not one of those that thinks that every party should be as left as possible – let MMP work its magic people!). I would love to see, and I know a lot of Labour members feel the same, a much more formal alliance between Labour and Green in the run-up to the election. Present a unified government in waiting.

Well, those are my wandering thoughts – over to you…

105 comments on “How do the Greens grow their base?”

  1. for them also..a return to their roots..

    ..for why the greens were formed in the first place..

    ..the greens seem to have lost their way..

    ..with ministerial-roles-ambitions over-riding any environmental-concerns..

    ..’concerns’ that are at the bedrock of environmental-concerns..

    ..(ie..mining/drilling etc etc….)

    ..the greens seem to be able to be ‘relaxed’ about those issues..

    (..as long as a ministerial-carrot is being dangled/on the horizon..)

    ..there is also the issue of how many years of silence from them was purchased by those poxy memorandums-of-understanding they signed up for with first labour..

    ..and then the tories..

    ..it is time for the green party to shed all of those constraints..

    ..and to stand on their hind legs and roar..

    ..the time for timidity/’accomodation’ is over…

    ..the situation is getting too urgent..

    ..for the greens to just fold themselves into the current-paradigm..

    ..(the paradigm that is causing all of our problems in the first place..)

    ..and for that to be ‘enough’..

    (oh..!..and tell all those rightwingers who have infiltrated the party..

    ..to just ‘fuck off!’..)

    ..and in the short-term..the greens should show in a real/practical way how they can work in unison with other parties on the left..

    ..in that to give the (excellent!) labour candidate the best chance against whatever dick-on-a-stick the tories put up..up north..

    ..the greens should offer for their candidate (david clendon) to stand down..

    ..and for them (the greens) to promise to actively campaign to urge their supporters to vote strategically..

    ..to give the greens their party vote…

    ..but to vote for the labour candidate..

    • JRyan 1.1

      You said: ..and in the short-term..the greens should show in a real/practical way how they can work in unison with other parties on the left..

      Why the left??? So Green issues are only supported by lefties???
      The above statement is why the Greens will never be a major force. With all the green issues Greens should be way higher. But associate your self that mentality and allow to be hijacked by extreme left leaning thought patterns will render the Greens a minor party. Get used to it.

      • because the right is not yet ‘green’..

        ..it’s as simple as that…

        • phillip ure 1.1.1.1

          and if the right became green..

          ..they wd no longer be ‘right’..

          ..and it is the ‘right’ who are the radicals..

          ..fiddling while rome/the planet burns…

          ..if they ‘know’..

          ..why the fuck have their policies not changed – to reflect this..?

          ..anything green from them..is just green-spin/wash..

          ..utter fucken game-playing bullshit..

  2. One Anonymous Bloke 2

    I think you’re being overly optimistic about the political effects of climate change. In looking for answers, people are liable to do what they always do: find whatever they brought with them.

  3. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 3

    By taking it from Labour.

  4. at a time when neo-liberalism is under serious threat of being swept away..

    ..trotter @ tdb urges the sacking of turei..(!)

    ..and for the green rightwinger shaw..and genter..as the new faces..

    ..that will enable the greens to easier snuggle up with the neo-liberal paradigm..

    ..trotter often talks utter-shite…

    ..(with the deepest love of his life being the sound of his own voice..)

    ..and this is a stellar-example of that propensity of his..

    • According to you, the nats, labour and green party are all neo lib. Since when does getting a combined 83% of the the electoral vote equate to “neo-liberalism is under serious threat of being swept away..”

      If you are to be believed, which clearly you shouldn’t, it’s quite obvious New Zealand voters don’t agree with your amateur analysis.

      Either you’re wrong that labour and greens are neo lib, like you often claim, or they are neo lib and the voters just don’t care which still makes you wrong.
      You can’t have it both ways.

    • tricledrown 4.2

      Trotter used to be left of left his nick name amongst the rank n file was trottsky.
      Now he has aged he has gone back to labour’s middle.
      The greens right.
      Trotter is now entrenched in the old lounge suit brigade of labour.
      Labour don’t want to do the hard yards of getting the non voter’s enrolled and out to vote on election day.
      Lounge seat labour leaders want to become National lite and steal votes off the National Party.
      Labour need to rebuild its street level organization starting with Nortland.
      Labour Party membership is well up according to their sources.
      Time to take advantage and make hay while the sun shines!
      Materia is a very good communicator and the greens would be stupid to drop her and they won’t!
      Trotter is always trying to be relevant but is now flailling about quiet often not knowing his left hand from his right.
      It would be far smarter for the greens and labour to coordinaye major policy and press releases so National can’t get easy hits on their parties with the old divide and conquer tactic that National exploit all the timeh

  5. Wizzle 5

    The Greens are on the way out. All they do is hinder and complain and bring nothing to the table.

    • no..no..wiz..

      ..it is neo-liberalism that is ‘on the way out’..

      ..do you not follow international-events/changes/trends..?

      ..how else to explain yr ignorance of this..?

      .

    • framu 5.2

      thanks for so quickly admiting you dont know what your talking about

      do you feel better after your little whine?

  6. The Chairman 6

    Something to ponder:

    The more to the center the Greens move, the more compatible they become with working with National.

    Moreover, as the Greens are largely left of Labour, the transition will more than likely tear them apart. Potentially leaving them with the divide within Labour currently face, coupled with the voter backlash that has created.

    • weka 6.1

      Not really. The GP have made if very clear that they will work with any party on policy, where there is shared policy. They have also made it very clear that the only way they would support a National govt was if the National party were to change sufficiently to share a lot of policy with the GP. Do you think that’s going to happen?

      That’s been ratified by members at the AGM for at least two years.

      In other words, the whole GP should work with National thing is not really anything that needs pondering, but it is something that gets used by the right to try and undermine the left (in various ways).

      • The Chairman 6.1.1

        Yes, really.

        You’re overlooking that a shift in the Greens current party principles (i.e. a move to the center/right) makes a coalition agreement between the two far more possible.

        Moreover, I’m not saying they should, I’m highlighting where a shift to the center could potentially lead.

        Therefore, coupled with the divide within the party this would create, it’s something the Greens will be required to consider.

        • framu 6.1.1.1

          your overlooking one huge thing – the membership

          weka is right – this is used time and again as a wedge – when its nothing more than saying that the greens will stick to their guns, but are happy to work on single issues

          The greens will never be compatible with the nats in a policy platform/coalition sense – and the moment they try it on their membership will get rid of them

          • The Chairman 6.1.1.1.1

            No. I’m not. The membership would more than likely become divided.

            Of course a shift to the center/right will see them become more compatible. Just as a shift further left would widen their divide, thus potential to work together.

            • framu 6.1.1.1.1.1

              well yes they could tear them selves apart and have splits etc – but cmon, are you seriously saying that the greens being able to form a coalition with the nats is going to happen? ever?

              Im saying that its such a long road to travel the membership would stop them before splitting

              look at their different policy platforms and you tell us how likely it is that the nast and the greens would ever get even remotely close enough to both trust and work productively with other

              • + 1..

                ..no matter the dreams of rightwing-greens..

                ..that meme is utter bullshit…

              • The Chairman

                A number in Labour once thought the same thing, then a guy called Roger Douglas came along and virtually turned Labour into National.

                • framu

                  yeah – thats shifting the goal posts somewhat

                  and labour and the greens operate utterly differently re: internal processes

                  your opening hypothetical is possible – but the odds on it eventuating before the membership does something about it is next to nothing -0 ergo: it aint happening any time soon if ever

                  • The Chairman

                    Of course it’s possible.

                    One should never underestimate the sway of the right within.

                    It’s times like this Party’s become vulnerable.

                    Commentators apply their influence and no doubt some party members will be swayed into re-positioning.

                    The left within will become unhappy, having virtually nowhere to turn or jump ship too. Thus, will likely stay and fight it out

                    As like Labour, the infighting will do damage, negatively impacting on the party and it’s support.

                    Win-win for the right. The party either re-positions right or destroys itself in the process.

                    Therefore, the negative impacts of a shift to the center is something the Party really needs to consider.

                    • framu

                      oh for gods sake – yes they need to consider it – but its like they are going to become facebook friends with genghis kahn are they?

                      just how right do you think the “right wingers” in the greens are?

                      your talking nonsense to the point where you are required to ignore everything thats being said to you in order to keep up the scenario youve got running.

                      how about you stop trading in hypotheticals that exist on the extreme borders of probability and deal with the much more likely ones?

                    • framu

                      bah – its NOT like they will become facebook friends

                      apologies for sloppy typing 🙂

                    • The Chairman

                      @ Framu

                      As right as the right within Labour no doubt.

                      Now you are just talking rubbish. One minute you claim it’s possible then you say it’s nonsense, pointing to Genghis Khan?

                      Get real.

                      A re-positioning of the Greens is a real probability. And a number are calling for it.

                      It’s not a hypothetical that exist on the extreme borders of probability.

                      Moreover, as they are left of Labour, a shift to the right is bound to cause a fight, thus hurt the party and it’s support. Therefore, it’s a negative potential reality they do need to consider.

                      What’s happen to Labour is a prime example of what can happen to the Greens if they don’t take note.

                      And with the Greens having a smaller support base, they may not survive.

                    • framu

                      “As right as the right within Labour no doubt.”

                      so now your saying that theres hard right ACT level personalities in the greens?

                      you really dont do this reading thing do you?

                      its really bloody simple – and im sick of repeating myself to you

                      for the greens to be able to work with the nats in a coalition agreement (or similar closeness) they would either have to gradually move a very long way to the right and the membership would stop them before they got there OR the would need to be brought down from within by secret hard right operatives within the party – both of those scenarios ARE possible – but so statisiticaly remote that they are fantasies more than realities. Other causes of ructions and splits would occur before they even got anywhere near the scenario you started with

                      is that so hard to understand? – am i talking rubbish here? – if so point out where my logic is wrong instead of shifting goalposts about

                    • Macro

                      You obviously have no idea of what your talking about.
                      I hosted a Greens Branch meeting last night. It was a great event. Yes, we will be discussing whether the Greens are “left” or “right” at the forthcoming AGM, but I suspect that the answer will be that we are Green. Such antique labels of “Left” and “Right” belong to a bygone era.
                      If concern of the environment in which we live and depend is “Right” (that was the side on which the Conservatives of the past were placed), then “conservation and protection of the environment” is a traditional “Right” issue). Not for the present “Right” of course.
                      If concern about inequality and injustice are issues for the “Left” then the Greens are “Left”.
                      Issues matter, labels don’t.

                    • The Chairman

                      @ Framu

                      Yes, I do. But as you should be able to see, the points you highlighted don’t change what I’ve said.

                      The point is, there is a very real probability the Greens may re-position, resulting in infighting like Labour, thus leaving them facing a similar voter backlash.

                    • framu

                      “The point is, there is a very real probability the Greens may re-position, resulting in infighting like Labour, thus leaving them facing a similar voter backlash.”

                      strange – because thats not what you started out saying is it

                      “The more to the center the Greens move, the more compatible they become with working with National.”

                      those two statements are actually quite different – thats why im accusing you of ignoring whats being said to you and that your shifting goalposts.

                      people – who i suspect know quite a bit more about the greens than you – have pointed out the holes in what your saying – yet you keep avoiding those bits – why?

                    • The Chairman

                      @ Macro
                      Economics is at the heart of politics. Thus being left, right or somewhere in between is vital to a party’s core policy.

                      You can’t do little without finances, and how you grow and spend that wealth all comes down to being right, left or somewhere in between.

                      Therefore, a party’s policy will reflect that. Even if they are Green.

                    • The Chairman

                      @ Framu

                      No. I’m merely highlighting there are rights within the Greens. And as with those among Labour, the extremeness of their convictions would vary.

                      The Greens don’t have to go into collation with National. As with Labour, a shift to the center alone could result in stirring up the divide, thus infighting,

                      When put to the vote, unless there is a unanimous agreement, their will be disgruntled party members and MPs, thus creating new ructions and the potential for these new factions to clash.

                      I’m not shifting goal posts. Their were two points initially made. Seems you need to take your own advice (read it).

                      1/ Moving to the center puts them in a closer position to work with National.

                      2/ Moving to the center opens them up to potential infighting.

                      Roger Douglas wasn’t a fantasy, neither was Ruth Richardson. Two insiders that went on to ACT.

                      Don’t underestimate your opponent.

                    • framu

                      so apart from the issue of whether the greens would go into a close relationship with national, and bear in mind this point is what this whole exchange has been about IMO – were basically agreeing on issues that are pretty bleeding obvious?

                      well bugger me – why did it take so many comments for you to say what ive been saying from the start?

                      the whole way through this i have been saying that of course theres movements, changes, factions etc in parties – BUT – that the meme that national and the greens are going to start working together isnt borne out by anything other than already debunked, wild and grandiose speculation – usually from people who have a vested interest in hurting the greens (not saying that your trying to hurt the greens here – im talking the source of the meme).

                      Thats been my whole damn point!

                    • Macro

                      @ The Chairman
                      Again you spout off about something you obviously have no knowledge of!
                      Do you not think that we have not considered that very point? Do you have any idea of Green thinking and policy on this matter? If you believe that “growth” in an economy is fundamental to a countries well being, you are seriously misinformed.
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product#Limitations_and_criticisms (note – even Simon Kuznets, the economist who developed the first comprehensive set of measures of national income, warned against its use as such!)
                      A sustainable economy on the other hand would have as its very basis the equality and well being of those within it.
                      You need to ask the fundamental question – “Just what is the economy for anyway?”
                      Short answer ” The greatest benefit, to the greatest number, over the longest run”
                      Present economic practice – as perceived and encouraged by the wordsmiths of the “Ministry of Truth” and practiced by current/recent Ministers of Finance, fails miserably in this regard.

                    • The Chairman

                      @ Framu

                      No. I initially put forward something to ponder, it’s basically taken you this long and you still failed to comprehend it.

                      I didn’t say the Greens would go into a close relationship with National, that’s an extreme you’ve been trying to imply I stated.

                      I said the more to the center the Greens move, the more compatible they become with working with National. Do you see and comprehend the difference?

                      Moreover can you fully fathom what the Greens moving to the center means for the left?

                    • The Chairman

                      @ Macro

                      The Greens aren’t campaigning on a move away from capitalism.

                      Therefore, until they do, money is require.

                      We can’t pay off our international liabilities or buy imports (such as medicines) with mung beans.

                      How that wealth is generated and distributed comes down to a party’s political leaning, thus the party and its overall policy will be labeled.

                      The right currently label them far left, hard left, etc…

                    • weka

                      I didn’t say the Greens would go into a close relationship with National, that’s an extreme you’ve been trying to imply I stated.

                      When I first challenged your idea that this whole thing needed to be pondered, you replied,

                      You’re overlooking that a shift in the Greens current party principles (i.e. a move to the center/right) makes a coalition agreement between the two far more possible.

                      See the word coalition there? You’ve been shifting the goal posts throughout this conversation each time you’ve been called on what you are saying.

                      Further, despite explanations you seem to have failed to grasp how the GP works and why your suggestions are fantasies. There are very good reasons why the GP can’t work with National, why it won’t implode in the way you are suggesting, why it can’t be coopted by ACToids, and even why the MPs and exec would have a hard time overriding the membership. Do you know what those things are yet?

                    • weka

                      anyway, thanks framu and Macro. It’s interesing and a bit scarey to see still how few people understand the cultural differences between the GP and the other major parties (am also thinking of Trotter and others who think Turei should resign too).

                      I might add this lack of understanding to my top three reasons why the GP doesn’t make faster headway.

                • tricledrown

                  Thats Chris Trotter left the labour party.and became a trotski lite New Labour then Alliance etc now he is back to where Douglas Labour.
                  Mind you Labour have always been a socialist democratic party a harnessed form of Capitalism.
                  It was the Coalition with Social Credit in the 1930’S that made the Labour Party more left wing.
                  King Dick Seddon was probably more left than labour has been.

                  • The Chairman

                    Good old John A Lee.

                    Yes, there will be some within Labour (largely the right within) hoping the Greens will move more to the center.

                    In many cases being to the left was showing Labour up and preventing them from lurching further right.

                    Which is a balance that will be lost if the Greens re-position to the center.

        • weka 6.1.1.2

          “You’re overlooking that a shift in the Greens current party principles (i.e. a move to the center/right) makes a coalition agreement between the two far more possible.”

          So that we can understand what you mean by that, can you please link to those GP principles that have shifted to the centre/right? It’ll be on the GP website.

          • The Chairman 6.1.1.2.1

            The discussion is how to grow the Green’s base and there have been calls for them to re-position to the center to do so.

            I wasn’t claiming their principles had shifted. I was highlighting the possible ramifications such a move (to the center, thus, a shift in current principles) would make.

            As for the other quotation (makes a coalition agreement between the two far more possible) See the words: far more possible?

            Again, I didn’t say they would as was incorrectly implied. I was highlighting it further opens it up to the possibility.

            Which should come as a warning to Labour.

            Labour haven’t been too willing to fully work with the Greens, therefore, the Greens may become sick off being Labours last cab off the rank.

            • weka 6.1.1.2.1.1

              Ok, so in other words you are speculating what might happen if the GP moved to the centre, or changed their principles, in ways that make working with National. And you’re doing this speculating despite there being no evidence that this is happening, and by your own admission is not what you are suggesting is happening.

              The things you are speculating on are things made up by people outside the party with their own agenda and who don’t understand what the GP is or how it works.

              Like I said, there is nothing to ponder here.

              “See the words: far more possible?”

              You’re still wrong. The thing that would make it more possible is if the GP membership voted at an AGM to allow the GP to head in that direction. Is there any reason to suggest it’s more possible that this would happen now than in the past?

              I honestly think that you don’t understand how the GP works internally and why what you are suggesting is not real. For instance, have you read the actual remit that’s been passed at the last 2 AGMs?

              • The Chairman

                I’m highlighting this as it’s part of the discussion – as explained above.

                Moreover, with the drop in the polls, failure to meet expectations after years of trying, the change of leadership and never achieving power, which can all take its toll, Party’s become vulnerable.

                The argument that the Green’s green policies are being held back by their left wing stance will re-air.

                Commentators will apply their influence, arguments are prepared and being put into play. And no doubt some party members will be swayed into re-positioning.

                Therefore, a re-positioning of the Greens is a real probability in this leadership change. And as you know, a number are calling for it.

                If Roger Douglas, Ruth Richardson, and dirty politics has taught you anything, it’s one shouldn’t underestimate their opponent.

                • weka

                  Yes, people with an agenda talk shit about the GP. But there is no evidence of their assertions (as demonstrated by this conversation).

                  “The argument that the Green’s green policies are being held back by their left wing stance will re-air.”

                  This shows a profound lack of understanding of what the GP really is.

                  “If Roger Douglas, Ruth Richardson, and dirty politics has taught you anything, it’s one shouldn’t underestimate their opponent.”

                  Please explain the internal party mechanisms by which a few ACT-types could hijack the GP. I’ve heard what you say about the membership gradually being split, but there is not evidence of this.

                  Norman resigning isn’t a bad thing. At worst, it’s neutral, at best it’s a good opportunity. I know this is hard for people to understand, but there was no coup, there is no problem, it’s being done well. It doesn’t have any of the baggage or negative connotations that other parties’ leadership changes have, because other parties change their leaders via bad blood.

                  Have you heard the saying that the GP want change not power? Once you understand that you’ll get to grips with why your pondering isn’t going anywhere other than straight to a right wing agenda.

                  • The Chairman

                    It’s called spin and there is good evidence it can sway voters position.

                    You are merely showing me you think you speak for all Green Party members – you don’t.

                    A number of Green members I’ve spoken to already feel a move to the center would be acceptable if green policy could be further advanced.

                    And I’m sure, with a bit of swaying, others could be convinced.

                    If you read what I’ve said about the membership being split and comprehended the point of the use of insiders, then you should have comprehended the influence a few well placed articulate individuals (coupled with the influence of the wider dirty politics machine) can wield.

                    It’s vulnerable times like this that these agendas are advanced.

                    Norman resigning was a shock for most. Shocking voters is not recommend, thus not really a good thing. Albeit, there was no bad blood, as you say .

                    Norman had a good handle on finance, which was part of what made him such a strong leader in these difficult financial times.

                    Time will ultimately tell whether the Greens will re-position or not.

                    I just wanted people to ponder the potential negative ramifications of them doing so.

                    In the meantime, keep an eye out (and arguments at the ready) for that influence being swayed from the right.

                    • Macro

                      Russel is not resigning – he is standing down after 9 years as co-leader. There is no coup. There is however complete understanding within the Party of his need to be part of his young family. That is the thing about Green’s – they can actually empathise – which is obviously a difficult concept for some commentators here and elsewhere.
                      The Party is in good heart, was the only Party of the left to actually hold it’s vote in the last election, increased its membership base, and if the energy that I experienced last evening is anything to go by, is raring to go.
                      So enough of your dribble. Every comment you make displays your ignorance.

                    • weka

                      “A number of Green members I’ve spoken to already feel a move to the center would be acceptable if green policy could be further advanced.”

                      Are they active members? Which policy? What does a move to the centre mean specifically?

                      “If you read what I’ve said about the membership being split and comprehended the point of the use of insiders, then you should have comprehended the influence a few well placed articulate individuals (coupled with the influence of the wider dirty politics machine) can wield.”

                      I understand your theory, I just don’t see you producing any evidence that it’s real.

                      The reason that the Rogernomes could take over Labour was because at that time the membership had bugger all power. That’s not true of the GP, and I think you have failed to understand the points being made here around the internal GP process.

                      “In the meantime, keep an eye out (and arguments at the ready) for that influence being swayed from the right.”

                      Thanks, but you do get that these are not new things you are saying right?

                    • framu

                      “I just wanted people to ponder the potential negative ramifications of them doing so.”

                      by blindly and deliberately ignoring everything some one says in reply.

                    • framu

                      thats the weird bit weka – im pretty sure we all get chairmans premise – in fact its explicitly stated several times

                    • The Chairman

                      @ Weka

                      I didn’t query their activeness.

                      They largely perceived a move to the center as giving them more flexibility to work with the right or the left, thus an opportunity to build their credibility, wider public perception and voter base.

                      Labour’s unwillingness to work closer with them weighed heavily on this. Coupled with Labour’s devastating loss, indicating a voter shift to the center.

                      No particular policy was mentioned, just a general wish for the party to focus more on green policy overall.

                      Bradford’s departure was fallout and a early sign of the growing left right divide within the Greens.

                      The past party insider publicly warned of their move to the right/center.

                      While the Greens internal processes makes a move to the right more challenging, it doesn’t totally rule it out.

                      Moreover It won’t be the first time the Greens have re-positioned after a leadership change.

                      Despite the internal processes, leadership changes open the party up to the potential to take a new direction, thus coupled with the other factors listed above, makes the party vulnerable to change.

                      The point you are missing about Douglas and Richardson is they had to sway and convince the caucus to run with their plans.

                      Moreover, in Douglas’s case he managed to bring about drastic change while keeping the unions on board. They never stop supporting the party – and that took some persuasion.

                      The power of persuasion is another area the Greens internal processes are susceptible.

                      Evidence was stated, commentators have already begun to apply their influence. Do you deny this?

                      Do you deny there are rights within the Greens articulating their desires?

                      Bradford largely left because her left wing stance largely became untenable with these desires.

                      These things are not a theory, they are largely common knowledge.

                      I know these things aren’t new, but it’s clear you required the heads up as you see no evidence for this. Moreover, think the internal processes will prevent it.

    • i wd submit that part of the reason for the drop-off in green support..

      ..was dismay at normans’ ‘yoo-hoo!-ing @ key/national..

      ..and his saying that bill english is the politician he most admires in parliament..

      ..more that a few labourite-green voters would have shied away @ those revelations..

      • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 6.2.1

        …and gone where, exactly, phil?

        • phillip ure 6.2.1.1

          hard to define..

          ..but the irrefutable facts are that 15% stated-support became 10% actual-vote…

          ..so they clearly went/skived-off somewhere..

          ..any ideas..?

          • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 6.2.1.1.1

            Not Mana.

            Must have been to one of the “neo-liberal” parties.

          • swordfish 6.2.1.1.2

            “But the irrefutable facts are that 15% stated-support became 10% actual-vote”

            In 2014 pre-election Opinion Polls, the Greens averaged:

            Final Week……11.7
            2 weeks before……13.3
            3 weeks before……12.1
            4 weeks before……12.8
            5 weeks before……13.6
            6 weeks before……11.7

            So, possible to exaggerate what they were polling. You’ve implied 15%, Chris Trotter suggested 14%, a few other pundits have been saying something very similar in the post-election period. Only 3 of the last 20 pre-Election polls had the Greens at or above 14%. I think people tend to focus on the headline stats when the Greens are at their absolute apex (like the 16.0% they received in one poll 4 weeks out) and in a slow and subtle process over the next few months, they begin to think that outlier figure was, in fact, the average.

            Should also add: the Greens received 10.7% of the Party-Vote at the 2014 General Election – so (rounding up) = 11%

      • tricledrown 6.2.2

        KDC poisoned the left he even said so himself.
        Thats what lost the lefts support.
        KDC’s dumbarse stunts made the whole left an easy target for Crosby Textor undermine.
        With extremely slick advertising!
        The lefts amateur ads and disunity allowed National to float through with an easy victory!

        • phillip ure 6.2.2.1

          yes..

          ..but he was not the only parent of that defeat…

        • Colonial Rawshark 6.2.2.2

          Nah that’s bullshit. Labour and Greens passing off the blame for their own average to shite performance to the brand new kid on the block is lame as can be.

          And with 800 more votes in Te Tai Tokerau, Hone and Laila would be in and KDC would be a fucking legend.

          That’s what it came down to.

  7. I doubt that the Greens are as preoccupied as Labour needs to be with growing their support numbers.

  8. saveNZ 9

    Yes I feel there should be more of an alliance between Labour and Greens in particular a strategic one, where when the votes are being split they (fairly) just run one candidate, with utter transparency why they are doing it (to get National out) and to stop National slipping in the gap while the ‘left’ actually got more votes in the electorate.

    I also feel they need more Sue Bradford types in the Green Party. Sue who’s outspoken views made her seem unpopular but I think she did a fantastic job getting through (I think?) most private member bills. The anti smacking laws which has made violence against children wrong in a similar way to drinking and driving, I think has made a huge difference in parents attitudes and I think child abuse is now down. She is an example of an ethical person who just doesn’t care about polls and ‘her career’ but just goes into politics for all the right reasons. I totally respect that in a politician and trust her more for it. Also Sue Kedgley was great. Obviously a huge fan of Jeanette Fitzgerald and the late Rod Donald. I think in a poll of who NZ most wanted to mind their children (i.e. had the most trust for) Jeanette F. won. I’m not sure if anyone in the Greens would win that one now as different personalities at play.

    Haven’t really taken to Meteria as feel she is quite corporate, but saying that don’t think she should step down, as like with Labour, infighting wrecks the party . Instead they should look for a warmer, less corporate, more activist orientated co leader to compliment her skills. Not a careerist!!!

    My view is the reason for their slight drop in party support, was that they did not embrace the InternetMana party, and made them look petty. Obviously it was more than that but like with Labour you need to NOT look like you care more about getting into power than caring about the country and policy and ethics just traded away.

    Greens have great policy and I think their time will come in the next election if they play their cards right. A lot of dissatisfaction with Labour but I think voters will like to know they are not splitting the left vote.

    My only beef is capital gains tax for Greens. Happy for property tax but not that one because enforcement is difficult and only affects people renting out properties generally and you actually need landlords not to flee the rental market or you have no houses for people to rent. I favour stamp duty as will get the speculators more effectively and in particular higher priced properties that are being built speculatively for immigrants and the local markets and dampen that down. Stamp duty gets everyone, is very hard to evade, so in my mind the fairest tax.

    • “..My view is the reason for their slight drop in party support, was that they did not embrace the InternetMana party, and (that) made them look petty.

      Obviously it was more than that – but like with Labour you need to NOT look like you care more about getting into power –

      – than caring about the country and policy and ethics just traded away. .”

      + 1..

      • The Al1en 9.1.1

        Lprent said it best. Apologies if I’m misrepresenting.

        Open mike 30/01/2015

        Open mike 30/01/2015

        With my emphasis on

        “ask yourself how and why the Labour party views external left parties with a certain degree of skepticism.”

        “the IMP looked and acted like just another useless and ineffectual disaster.”

        “I think you are a idiot who is too lazy to think about why the Labour party doesn’t do the kinds of stupid things that *you* think that they should do.”

        • phillip ure 9.1.1.1

          i do not respond to comments from the above-idiot..

          • The Al1en 9.1.1.1.1

            You don’t need to respond for the point to be made.
            Just like I don’t even have to author them when more eloquent alternatives are freely available.

            But as replies go, on a discussion blog, that’s as defeatist, beaten and lame arse as it’s gets.
            Someone should courier you a fraidy cat numb nut of the day award 😉

            So big -1 to the supposition that the green vote is falling in any way because of a failure to embrace mip.
            Seriously, why would the labour party vote go up given their stance in ttt? Come on, think for cripes sake. 🙄

  9. ghostwhowalksnz 10

    Its time the Greens stooped running in electorate seats and campaigned only for the party vote.

    That way their swinging supporters who might only give one tick can only give the tick that matters.

    But if they want to remain under the “grass ceiling” of 11% then by all means stay the way they are.

  10. tracey 11

    it appears to me thay little is positioning labour to attract soft nat votets. some labour may go to green as a result. the greens will not be a major paty in my lifetime but it doesnt prevent them impacting. ACT got 16000 pv and a gifted seat and they can destroy nz. so stay true to core values

    people first

  11. gsays 12

    imho, the greens need to bring social justice issues back to the front of their agenda.
    poverty/children/pot decriminilization etc

    not to devalue climate change/conservation issues, but be clear.
    a definite no to deep sea mining, fracking etc.

    as i wrote yesterday, one or two simple actions that they will take,
    financial transaction tax, ubi, a teachers aid in every school class.

    • Macro 12.1

      The two issues that the Greens will be working on this year – not just nationally, but at a local level are:

      a. Inequality and Social Justice, and
      b. Climate Change

      Greens are at the forefront of activism with regards
      a. deep sea mining http://sciblogs.co.nz/hot-topic/tag/jeanette-fitzsimons/
      b. mining in National Parks (That issue hasn’t gone away),
      http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK1409/S00382/hundreds-protest-against-mining-in-the-karangahake-gorge.htm
      c. Fracking,
      https://home.greens.org.nz/misc-documents/fracking-regulatory-failures-and-short-comings-nz
      d, destruction of world renowned beaches (New Chumbs Beach)
      http://www.tcdc.govt.nz/Your-Council/News-and-Media/News-and-Public-Notices/News-Archived-Articles/August-2014/New-Chum-petition-reinforces-Councils-stand/
      etc.
      There will be no let up in the opposition to these destructive practices being promoted by National.

      • gsays 12.1.1

        hi macro, thanx for the links.
        that addresses the conservation issues.
        how about reforms around social justice in the future?

        • Macro 12.1.1.1

          Jan Logie is the spokesperson for Income Support, Immigration, Women, Pacific Island Affairs, Ethnic Affairs, Human Rights, Rainbow Issues, Overseas Development Aid and Associate for Housing
          http://sustainablelens.org/?p=699
          Jan is in constant communication with a ngos and others working in social justice issues around New Zealand. Many Greens are involved professionally on these issues on a daily basis.
          It’s not so easy to provide links for this type of activity, because on many occasions they just aren’t considered newsworthy by the “Ministry of Truth”. I know this first hand. My daughter is co-convener for the local Branch and regularly arranges for visiting MPs and others to give talks etc. Local media are invited but politely decline. Whereas they cannot avoid large issues such as 100’s demonstrating at Karangahake Mining, these go under the radar. Except of course if you happen to be the local Nat MP visiting a sausage sizzle, or similar. Then you get a half page spread.

          • gsays 12.1.1.1.1

            thanx macro for the reply.

            i agree traction can be hard to get on newspaper and tv.

            it was, as far as i was aware, a concious and deliberate move to go a bit quiet on social issues by the green party.
            then nandor moved on and i remember him saying he could be more effective out of parliament than in it.
            then sue bradford moved on (because of the internet party hook up.
            then russel normans’ comments about being able to work with nats on certain policies.

            what i am getting at from my oberving from afar is that they have moved away from these issues for fear of scaring the horses.

            • Macro 12.1.1.1.1.1

              The events you relate are years old (apart from Russel’s very understandable standing down at the forthcoming AGM – he now has 3 children of pre-school age) and have nothing to do with a “move to the left or right or where-ever”. You can read Green policy here:
              https://www.greens.org.nz/policy
              Of 27 Policy statements on that page – 12 are directly concerned with Social Justice. I hardly think that that is running away from facing up to the issues that affect the disadvantaged in our Society.

  12. Sable 13

    MMP work its magic. How’s that going so far? MMP has conjured up a Cane Toad and his US sell out pals. No. There is a need for more action from the left. Labour have sold out to the right and National were never anything else. There is a need for more genuine left leaning parties and strong marketing to push the brand. They will never get a fair hearing from the unquestioning right wing media in this country. Back to basics, go door to door and develop campaigns to show people why they should vote for the left.

  13. Chooky 14

    * Greens need to stick to core issues…which they have done very well…ie environmental issues, climate change, social and environmental well being of NZers, sustainability of natural resources in NZ and internationally, preserving our planet, international Green issues….

    * Greens need the BEST possible male Party co-leader spokesman to replace Russel Norman ….and my pick is James Shaw ( he is young and a brilliant speaker and has the X-factor charisma)

    * Russel Norman needs to be retained in the Green party as an adviser/researcher and director …and invaluable support for the co-leaders ( eg to step in when they can’t as a spokesperson)

    * Metiria Turei must remain as woman co-leader because she is very very good ….and gives the Maori dimension…. there is absolutely no reason for her to step down ( anyone who says so is sus)

    The Greens are the FUTURE ( or we perish)

    • Macro 14.1

      Chooky if you want all these things – then here is how you go about it:
      https://www.greens.org.nz
      Membership costs $15.00 – that’s it.

      • Chooky 14.1.1

        thankyou Macro…i am not sure if I am a member or not…but as i am a member of the Labour Party I think maybe not…but does it matter?…I do help the Greens

        • weka 14.1.1.1

          It’s better for the GP to have a higher membership.

          You’re not allowed to be a member of another party if you want to be a GP member, but I don’t think there is a mechanism to prevent this (parties don’t publish their membership lists). It’s an honour system.

          • Chooky 14.1.1.1.1

            maybe i am a member…can’t remember…however i do donate more than $15…i am a member without the certification or receipt ( or maybe I have it and have lost it?)…one of those monkey swinging through the trees voters…( anarchists?)

  14. One Anonymous Bloke 15

    They grow their base by being credible, above all – committed to evidence-based policy.

    There’s nothing wrong (per se) with pushing emotional buttons – and doing so from solid ground has a lasting effect.

  15. b waghorn 16

    Oh oh oh
    Be clearer on rural issues so there not just portrayed as anti every thing outside the 50 k zone not saying its there fault just that’s the perception I get.

  16. millsy 17

    The name and their colour should be big clues to the Green Party as to the direction the party they should go in.

    The Greens should have a more rural focus — reach out to the hunters and fishers, and try and drive a wedge between the good farmers and evil farmers. They need to have a few more farmers on their list. Straight talking kiwi blokes. Guys who can go, “look mate, we know you want to make a buck, but you dont need to fuck the river up doing it, we can show you how to do it maybe”. Launch raids deep into National’s rural heartland. They did it before when they took Coromandel off National. They could have turned that into a Green fortress.

    • weka 17.1

      Interesting idea. The tricky thing about Coromandel is that Fitzsimons only held the seat for one term. I can’t find the party vote results, which would tell us if people were voting Green or for her. Labour holding off helped too. But it didn’t last, and that ties up a lot of resources from a party that’s not that big. They seem heading in the direction of electorate seats, but I’m guessing they’ll first go for somewhere urban that has high party vote too.

      It would be very cool if a farmer or two were to step up though.

      I’d like the GP, or someone, to do what you suggest with regional council elections. Stand candidates that are pro-farmer and pro-environmental protection, and campaign on getting urban people out to vote. I think we’re close to the point where people are going to vote to save ther rivers esp.

  17. aerobubble 18

    Farmers.

    Property and finance speculators have plague the farming community, while govt supported and aided hugely harmful policies, leaky homes, holding back public transport, housing bubble, etc. Nats and yes Labour have destroyed not only rural communities but highjack their wealth to build a highly inefficient Auckland.

    Farmers are naturally open to green ideas, ideals. THey understand deregulating
    their farms and letting nature, the free market, run rampent, will create a free highly agressive rent seeking weeds.

    More electric cars means less demand for diesel and so pay off for farmers.

    etc etc.

    Greens need a farmer friendly leader Norman has done a great job
    showing the Greens are economically and financial savvy, so to build
    the national aaliance between the farming and property speculators
    must be targetting amd broken apart. no, not directly as labour does,
    but sitting down with pro-gren farmers and listening. start a conversation,
    find policies and start picking up how farmers talk, etc.

  18. Michael 19

    One way the Greens could grow their base is by appealing to some of the hundreds of thousands of people alienated from politics by the Labour Party. Evidently, Labour doesn’t want them back so it’s open to someone else to appeal to them. The Greens don’t even need them all in their camp to become a serious force in Parliament: I estimate one-third of the non-voters would be enough for the Greens to edge Labour out as the primary opposition party or to position it as the vital coalition partner for a minority government.

  19. SPC 20

    Whoever they choose for leadership, they will have the same party members. And it is they who determine policy.

  20. DLANZ Disabled Liberation Aotearoa NZ 21

    Good article mate if the NZ public had taken DLANZ advice the we could have seen Metiria Turei and Hone as Co-Prime Ministers….Waitangi to be resigned where all our ancestors can rest in peace, will require it be done between Friends and the Greens have in proved to be the best of the Pakeha’ parties…they are based on global and universal foundations and also have members directly linked like Metiria and Marama Davidson here but also young Jack McDonald and I would have too loved to also see him take Turoro / Sick Tariana.

    As DLANZ wrote in our Election Review “Congratulations to the Greens for at least maintaining their ‘share’ of the public vote, but I feel they should have not been so rigid on their political platform for just the Party vote. Their List vote was never under threat, but I feel had they let the likes of Marama Davidson and Jack McDonald been given clearance ‘to have a go’ at their respective Maori Seats, NZ Green would have entrenched themselves at a ground level of NZ Political landscape again In the upcoming ‘Storm’ Aotearoa / Waitangi will need Social Justice Environment and Maori issues to be kept on the Parliamentary floor

    However Mana was the biggest casualty of the last NZ Election.. The Media has been full of reasons, many debates will be aired but I hope to see Hone Harawira Annette Sykes and the others in Parliament soon. Take nothing from the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand they held on their share and took up Mana’s Feed the Kids…..good on them I voted for both as 2011 and onto 2017….hope we all learn next election”

    The Disabled and Greens approach to how to criteria ‘disability’ also is providing a challenge to not portray Disabled as ‘sick’ and needy when its Able bodied / Maaroherohe society not Nature that is wonky. Good things take time eh?
    Waiata Song “We Can Get Together” Ice House..nee The Flowers

    Regards
    Doug Hay
    DLANZ Cordinator

    • weka 21.1

      interesting and thoughtful comment, thanks. Does DLANZ have a presence online that you can link to?

  21. Jim Hawthorne 22

    um- hire an intelligent straight white male to balance things up and make him co-leader – then let him question the ownership and policies of the Rothschild Bank/RB without being fired? that would help in my view.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • New Zealand bans military style semi-automatics and assault rifles
    Military style semi-automatics and assault rifles banned under stronger gun laws Immediate action to prevent stock-piling Military style semi-automatics and assault rifles will be banned in New Zealand under stronger new gun laws announced today, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says. ...
    2 days ago
  • Membership: Australia and New Zealand Electronic Invoicing Board
    The Governments of Australia and New Zealand have announced the membership of the Australia and New Zealand Electronic Invoicing Board (ANZEIB) today. This is an important step towards implementing e-Invoicing across both countries to help businesses save time and money ...
    2 weeks ago
  • An end to unnecessary secondary tax
    Workers who are paying too much tax because of incorrect secondary tax codes are in line for relief with the passage of legislation through Parliament late last night. The Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19, Modernising Tax Administration, and Remedial Matters) ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Chatham Islands pāua plan approved
    Efforts to reverse the decline in the Chatham Islands pāua fishery are the focus of a new plan jointly agreed between government, the local community and industry. Fisheries Minister Stuart Nash says the plan was developed by the PauaMAC4 Industry ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Bill introduced for synthetics crackdown
    The Police will get stronger powers of search and seizure to crackdown on synthetic drugs under new legislation, which makes the two main synthetics (5F-ADB and AMB-FUBINACA) Class A drugs. The Government has today introduced the Misuse of Drugs Amendment ...
    3 weeks ago