When Metiria Turei talked about lying to secure her benefit, it divided New Zealanders including Greens voters. As it unfolded, the attacks were unending, Metiria stepped away and their opponents had a field day, many soft Greens voters walked away to Labour. I can understand some of the reasons why, and this is not a rehash of the right or wrong of that. However, if you walked away from the Greens then, it is time to come back and ensure a Greens presence in the change of government.
A Colmar Brunton poll came out tonight right at the start of the Stuff Christchurch Leaders’ Debate, and it confirms the trend of the last few weeks: Labour at 43 percent are now 4 points ahead of National on 39 percent. Let me start with a prediction: the government is changing at this election. Jacinda Ardern has been a revelation and a point of difference to the stale, pale, male National Cabinet. Andrew Little deserves a medal for standing down.
The key point of difference is that Jacinda embodies vision and emotional intelligence, connecting with people where they are actually at in their personal situation and articulating the pain in communities who have not seen real benefit from pretty reasonable economic growth. Fantastic and well overdue, but even if that is what you wanted, Labour is not going to be able to govern alone. So we all have a question we need to answer: who do you want in coalition with Labour?
New Zealand First, in the above poll, is at nine percent. Winston is poised to play the role of the Kingmaker as he has done time and time again. Perhaps some of you reading this are excited about the prospect and I’m not going to ring an alarm and yell, ‘fire!’ Winston has done a pretty solid job in government over many years, and he was actually pretty good as a Foreign Minister. However, Winston is always Winston First and wants power for himself; if affecting positive change for others gets him there, he’ll do it. If picking on a group of people will do the same, he’ll do that too.
I keep coming back to the most important statement of this election from Jacinda Ardern, that “climate change is our generation’s nuclear free moment.” I agree and if you agree, then we need to ensure the Greens are the coalition partner in waiting for Labour.
The Greens have the most comprehensive and action oriented policy of any of the major political parties in Aotearoa New Zealand and they hold responding to climate change and the environment as their central priority. In summary, their climate change policy commits to:
- a 100 percent reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 with biannual reviews and technology incentives to make the change;
- New Zealand to lead the press for negotiations on a binding follow up international agreement to the Paris Accord;
- phase out all use of fossil fuels in transport and shift to rail and shipping over trucking;
- supercharge research and development, particularly to help farmers reduce emissions from stock;
- reverse deforestation, an important goal here, as we are one of the most deforested countries in the entire world;
- introduce a real emissions trading scheme that includes agriculture;
- fund adaptation initiatives to ensure communities, iwi, businesses and all other stakeholders are supported to make this essential transition.
Labour has a good climate change policy, but it is not as comprehensive and tries to play both sides of the field: privileging our current economic settings whilst giving lip service to fundamentally transforming our economy and our industries. Labour will be nudged closer to action and transformation in a coalition with the Greens.
But here’s the problem; the Greens are at five percent in the latest poll, and have been for a couple of polls. Whilst that’s the threshold for our Parliament, the Greens have traditionally polled higher than the vote they have garnered on the day of the election. So they are at risk of losing their seats and playing an important role in our future. If you walked away over the handling of Metiria’s revelations or Clendon and Graham’s dismissals, it’s time to ask yourself a question: do I prefer a Labour-NZ First coalition or do I prefer a Labour-Greens-Māori Party coalition?
We are within percentage points of a Labour-Greens-Māori Party coalition. If Labour holds 43 percent of the vote, that’s something like 51-52 seats. If the Greens got five percent, that’s six seats. If the Māori Party get an electorate seat and two percent of the vote, they’ll have 2-3 seats. They are within reaching distance of a viable coalition. But we have to vote with intent: vote for the coalition you want.
Unlike the slightly unhinged New Zealand First offerings, the Greens have some impressive leaders on their list. The first six who would get in on five percent are: James Shaw; Marama Davidson; Julie Anne Genter; Eugenie Sage; Gareth Hughes; and Jan Logie. If they pushed up to six percent, we would get Chloe Swarbrick. If they pushed up to nine percent (admittedly unlikely), we’d get Jack McDonald who is one of the most talented young Māori in the country.
I met my first voter the other day who admitted to me that they went into the booth on the day to vote for the person and party they thought was going to win because they liked to vote for the winning side. I was slightly horrified, but I also know I just encountered the soft centre who are shifting towards Jacinda. Those of us who vote for more than the opportunity to be in the winning team need to hold the line in our voting this year.
Jacinda’s reinvigoration of Labour and of the centre-left is genuinely exciting, and I can understand if you want to be part of it. Counter-intuitively, you are more likely to get the type of leadership you want from Jacinda as Prime Minister if you vote for the support party that will help point the government in a particular policy direction. If your priorities include the environment and climate change, then its time to support the Greens again.
Excellent post. I’m recommending that to all my people, they all want to get on board with Jacinda, but once they realise that she’s vulnerable to Winston, they see the value in going Green for party vote.
Also, Labour need the excuse to give up deep sea drilling and ditching the TPP. Of course they would prefer to do this but campaigning on it gives the attack-pack ammunition to confuse everything. They need the Greens in there to be able to save face and go to their proper values.
I hope you are right on Labour really preferring to ditch the TPP and give up deep sea drilling.
Even NZF is opposed to a lot of TPPA, though.
Ardern said she will only say restrictions on foreigners buying NZ homes is a bottom line for Labour on the TPPA.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/339209/the-leader-interview-jacinda-ardern
The reason she apparently gave for not stating her position on other parts of the TPPA, was that it was necessary for Labour in the TPPA negotiations to keep their positions to themselves.
Also, Ardern ruled out an inheritance tax.
The GP is staunch on no deep sea drilling. And already has a strong commitment to some other policies that Ardern has come on board with in the last few week: more rights for renters, policies to combat climate change, etc.
stephen mills said greens on 7％ according to labour party polling so little chance a green vote will be wasted…in fact a vote for the greens is the only way we will get a progressive government…Shaw has impressed me
Looks like there might be space forming for a party with a primary aim of environmental sustainability . The number of people arguing here that the Greens are not that party makes me cautious on that point. Such a party would get my vote but it appears the Green party is not that party at this time.
The Greens are the party you are looking for… The only people who say or possibly think otherwise are far right wing believers who wouldn’t vote for the greens anyway… it is like listening to Mana party supporters on how ACT isn’t a libertarian party
You’re the person on here arguing that the Greens are not that party. No-one else.
Why don’t you call your new party the Xanthe Party? Or do you think TOP already have a monopoly on vanity projects?
Edit: I note that you want to separate the three policy planks and only pursue one of them, precisely the criticism you paid lip service to yesterday.
willful misunderstanding/misstatement is not dialogue
Flouncing Diva stamps foot, demands personal policy veto.
the end..(what we are trying to achieve) environmental sustainability
the means..(how we are going about it) social justice , appropriate decision making, non violence
there is no argument about what “planks” are in or out, just the relationship between them! and yes it does make a really big difference in outcome (or current lack of!)
Peoples’ Front Of Judea.
If you also offer us some of your solid political analysis I’m much less likely to get out the Bold Pen (which I will do if this subthread becomes a slanging match, no matter how witty you are).
I just don’t think anyone’s entitled to their very own personal political party that only proposes the strategies and solutions that they agree with 100%.
Further, I (and others) suspect Xanthe is overstating the case that the Greens have changed their policies to such an extent as to dilute any of their goals.
Hence the entirely apt and on-topic references to divas and the Peoples’ Front Of Judea. Brevity is the bane of moderators eh.
it is (it’s not that the references aren’t apt or understandable it’s that they’re also being expressed in ways that are likely to start a flame war).
And, taking my moderator hat off, I agree with what your assessment.
stephen mills said greens on 7％ according to labour party polling so little chance a green vote will be wasted…in fact a vote for the greens is the only way we will get a progressive government…Shaw has impressed me
yeah, he’s really come into his own in the past few months, so good to see.
lol
So to be explicit, I’m not trying to start a flamewar. I think your response to this alleged change in tactics is disproportionate, if not actively destructive.
How environmentally sustainable is it to tell people “it’s my way or the highway”?
As a Green voter, and a ‘soft’ Green voter at that, I always say…Poor people and beneficiaries are part of a sustainable environment.
If you don’t have equality and fairness then there can be no sustainability.
Unless of course you get all Elon Musk about it and create some environmental utopia for ‘the Few’ eating kuroge wagyu with robot slaves doing the dishes, and leave ‘The Others’ stuck on some uninhabitable rock floating through space eating lab grown KFC and wearing recycled plastic bags.
Meterias stand and presentation of the issues was, I think, appallingly handled, but it was the reassurance I needed to believe that the Greens understand the place of people, ALL people, as part of the environment.
I actually agree with each of the points you make Siobhan
What I am actually trying to do is offer a way to understand why “Meterias stand and presentation of the issues was, I think, appallingly handled” and an offer an understanding that will avoid that!
That the “four pillars” doctrine is necessary at all shows that it is not a natural understanding of the Green charter. please do not think that I am somehow saying poor people are less important than environmental sustainability (that would assume that the end is more important than the means which doctrine i reject).
Resoundingly I state that both an end and a means are equally necessary!
What I am saying is that the Green charter offers a way forward and in rejecting that way with the “four pillars” the greens have gone astray
Well, yes, you are right, and its those very concerns that make me a ‘soft’ Green voter.
And it will be interesting to see the election results.
I’m wondering how many people will enter the polling booth intending to vote Green, then freak at the last moment and vote Labour.
The need for a change of government is so strong, and for that Labour needs to get good numbers, and its not entirely clear if the Greens are going to be part of that.
And I’ve found that for some people there is still a ‘first Past the Post’ mentality floating around.
The only way to change the government is to vote Green. Voting Red just means Winnie FIrst is the kingmaker, and any government with Winnie First is not a change
+1000 youfool
“Astray”: translation: they’ve decided to go down the path you didn’t want them to, and you’re still standing at the intersection demanding they come back and follow you.
Which demonstrates that you were never really with them at all.
“That the “four pillars” doctrine is necessary at all shows that it is not a natural understanding of the Green charter”
That doesn’t make sense. The four principles are the GP charter.
https://www.greens.org.nz/charter
The green Charter:
1 sets out four principles (the principle headers)
2 establishes relationships between those principles (the linking texts)
the “four pillars” redefines (or repudiates) those relationships.
Please link to something that explains what you mean by four pillars.
what do you understand to be the purpose of the linking texts of the charter?
My experience of “four pillars doctrine” is having it drummed into us at multiple Green Conferences. Essentially the effect in the party was to justify addressing each of the principles in isolation rather than as a gestalt as set out in the charter.
Oh well, I didn’t realise the nit you’re picking was so gigantic. Biggest nit ever! Ah! It’s blocking out the sun!
Is ‘four pillars’ a GP term or yours? Is it a synonym for the four principles?
nope its a GP term http://greenpolitics.wikia.com/wiki/Four_Pillars_of_the_Green_Party
the significance of describing them as “pillars” is to point out that each is necessary to make the total (which i totally agree with!)
however this analysis by describing a relationship between the the principles (as pillars) ends up undermining the charter because it does not acknowledge the relationship already established there.
The green Charter not only sets out a task but through the linking texts sets out a path, it is IMHO that greens got into parliament by abandoning that path and their current precarious position is also a result of abandoning that path.
My purpose is not to attack the greens but to help them understand why they are in their current position.
what do you understand to be the purpose of the linking texts of the charter?
So the four pillars is an international green parliamentary politics term and concept.
And you have experience of the NZGP using it in the past.
And you think that somewhere they’ve gone wrong.
And now you think that you can teach them where they’ve gone wrong.
And you’ve said previously that you think them not making it into parliament would be good for them.
I find that all pretty patronising and undermining.
The relationship between the concepts and how they get acted on and expressed by the party itself is certainly interesting, but you do repeatedly come across as attacking and undermining the NZ Greens, so I don’t think there’s much conversation to be had on the philosophical aspects, especially during an election campaign such as this.
@Xanthe: What was your purpose when you changed “ecological sustainability” to “environmental sustainability”?
who are you asking? If you’re asking me, I’ve just said I think there’s no point to that conversation given your ongoing negativity about the Greens that leaves a number of people with the strong impression that you are undermining them.
Xanthe – “My purpose is not to attack the greens but to help them understand why they are in their current position.”
Not credible.
Weka – “(Xanthe’s) … ongoing negativity about the Greens that leaves a number of people with the strong impression that you are undermining them.”
Correct. That “strong impression” is a entirely correct, imo.
Xanthe’s here to obfuscate and deflate.
I have been trying to convince some friends of mine that this election is really NZ First vs The Greens. The red and blue team doesn’t matter, but who the support will come from. They are normally blue right through to their bones, but they all dislike Winnie with a passion. I don’t know if I have done enough to get them to vote green yet, but I am trying.
The bottom line is either we get a Winnie first swayed government, which may be either colour but will be the same either way with Winnie calling the shots, or we get a green government, which will 99.9% be a red-green, but Winnie will not have much of a say and will do what Winnie actually does vest, sit on the cross-benches and ensure no shirt goes down that everyone isn’t aware of (unless he is part of that shit)
If you can convince your Blue mates to go Green, you are doing the best work of all. Kia kaha!
I don’t think they will change, but I am doing my best to try and point out their actual choices, and that a vote blue is a vote for winnie as there are no other options for national
They might not vote too, which is also useful.
I would never want someone to not vote (and these friends generally do vote as they understand their democratic/civil rights) even if they vote for ‘the wrong team’. They also do their best to try and convince me that the blue team is the only team worth voting for, as they are realists apparently and the red/green flavours live in fair-land.
How would you feel about a vote of “no confidence in any of them” if that was an option?
I am 50/50 on the concept. If it is actually what people feel then yes, but really it would be better to have better civics classes and education for everyone so they can better understand what the different parties are offering, and ideally a dismantling of the National and Labour parties so that they are not so dominate in terms of numbers, so people can feel more confident that their particular party of choice will have as much influence as the combined vote should give them, which also means dropping the 5% threshold, and also of parties contesting electorates (only independent candidates can represent a small sub-section of NZ society, parties are for broad brushes), but the executive is voted on party lines (preferably a popular vote for Head of State, who appoints a cabinet from the government, leaving the rest of government to run parliament).
Sure: let the right wing narrative prevail.
The marginal race that matters is between Labour and National. That’s the cake.
The rest is arguing over the colour of the icing.
Vote Labour and change the government.
That’s only true for centrists.
Even then it isn’t true… neither Labour nor National will make 50% so they both need to look elsewhere to full the government benches, that is the decision we have to make, who should Labour or National deal with to govern, and we need to decide which flavour sits well with us. Voting Lab or Nat just says we don’t want to make that hard decision. Afterall a 40% Nat, 30% labour with a 20% green & 10% NZF is still going to change the government, where a 40% Lab, 40% Nat, 10% NZF is not. In this last scenario, it doesn’t matter what colour team is on the government benches, Winnie First is the true government. If you want that then vote NZF or Nat or Lab. If you want a true change in government vote Green.
National or Labour is the decision for 85% of voters. No matter the label.
Greens best chance of survival – the basic aim – is mobilise its core base.
not true ….you will end up with winston calling many shots if the greens dont get 5％….and he may well go with English
So I guess the hubris is gone of a while back of talk about forcing a new election if labour shuts the greens out of ‘government’
Now the ambition is all about limiting Peters. Could that be hubris as well.
Who exactly was talking about forcing a new election?
“So I guess the hubris is gone of a while back of talk about forcing a new election if labour shuts the greens out of ‘government’”
Who said that?
Re Peters, the Greens positioned this months ago in a major speech and have been campaigning on the idea of a progressive govt being L/G not L/NZF. This is not new. My reading is that it is inherent in the MoU too.
I understand from RNZ tweets this morning, that Ardern said in this morning’s RNZ interview, that there will likely be ministerial roles for some Green MPs.
It seems more that the sugar rush of so-called “Jacinda Mania” is wearing off, and some are looking more closely and the fine print, as indicated by the above Guest Post.
If you listen to the interview, you’ll not hear Ardern say anything remotely close to any such likelihood.
She was asked straight up about the prospect of Green positions in Cabinet and couldn’t even bring herself to say it would be a “nice to have”.
http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/07/green-mp-threatens-new-election-if-labour-goes-with-nz-first.html
‘Green MP Barry Coates says the party would refuse to support a Labour-NZ First Government – and even indicated the Greens would be prepared to force another election to stop it.”
Why insult readers intelligence by refuting everything ?
You are still in a bubble . What will happen when the whole thing bursts and there are no Green Mps at all.
Thats what I read the exodus of advisors was about, making sure they are available for jobs on labours ship as they could see there wasnt going to be Greens ship.
Im sure they werent after baubles, just so they could be involved on the things there had been working on.
From your link. The “hubris” was stamped on immediately by a co-leader.
Speaking of hubris, you are very sure how the election will turn out for the Greens. Crystal ball or the Ken Ring method?
ok, now I’m jealous of the clarity of your brevity 🙂
I haven’t refuted everything, I asked you to clarify what you meant because it was vague as fuck and left people guessing what you were referring to.
So, a single Green MP made an inference off his own bat about forcing another election, and the co-leader of his party promptly said he was wrong, that the Greens had no intention of doing this. The MP subsequently also said that it wasn’t about forcing another election. Everyone accepted that the Greens wouldn’t do such a daft thing and moved on. Yet here you are months later trying to make out that it’s an actual thing. I can see why you were so vague to start with, because when examined it’s a stupid argument.
Meanwhile, for months the Greens have been campaigning on a progressive govt requires the Greens not NZF and you are trying to make out this is new. Also stupid.
Go on, carry on with this absurd denial. I wasnt precise because I thought well informed people knew about it. Your claim was ‘who said that’
No need to get all pompous over something that did happen
Yes, it was politically damaging so involved some backsliding. Hubris does that when there are grandiose dreams.
Lol, in other words, you’ve got no argument and are now resorting to assertion and ad homs.
You cant accept other people have got it right ?
You didnt read this bit then:
Mr Coates also said Green MPs had discussed refusing to support a Labour-NZ First combination as a caucus in the past fortnight.
A lone MPs inference? It was the whole bloody caucus. if you dont support a minority government its another election.
You went from ‘Who said that’ to detailing the process of sweeping what was said under the carpet in 10 min. Why couldnt you get there in the first place instead of fabricating another load of rubbish.
Pretty sure that means they discussed it and rejected it, because it’s a really stupid thing for any party to do. Spin it all you like, but it was a mild storm in a teacup and has zero relevance to the election campaign.
“if you dont support a minority government its another election.”
The Greens have said they’re not going to do that to the country. You don’t have to believe them of course, but you can’t pretend that their position is they will do that if they don’t get their way.
Where does it say ‘they discussed it and rejected it- thats your inference
Its not supported by Coates mentioning it publically later – naughty boy- as why would you bring something up that is quite explosive AND had been rejected?
Your rebuttal is hogwash like your previous denial and then attempt to sweep it under the carpet.
Two months out from an election the Green Caucus discuss using dynamite as though there are no better things to put on an agenda.
Shaw may have backtracked on what was discussed -have we got past the point with you that it was discussed in caucus and was blurted out by an MP?, LOL- but interestingly Metiria Turei was all quiet- thats my inference btw.
Not that Meteria Turei matters anymore, but Im sure – inference again- labour remembers what was being plotted 2 months back.
“thats your inference”
Yes, that’s what I meant when I said ‘pretty sure’. It’s from my memory of how it unfolded at the time, and my pretty good understanding of both the culture of the GP and how they operate.
As I said, you can certainly believe whatever you like, but it doesn’t have much credibility given all you seem to be doing here is throwing around assertion and ad homs. This conversation is getting boring now.
I discussed it with you. By your logic, I must agree with you. But I don’t. Wow, a paradox!
No, wait, I think I see the problem…
TROLL
The Greens lost support was because a major party suddenly looked attractive, not because of Metiria. The surge of green popularity after her comments forced Labour s leadership change
I suspect that’s true myself. This idea that Metiria Turei caused significant Green support to move to Labour is speculation, a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. We don’t know what caused them to lose to support to Labour, but top contender has to be the boost to Labour’s popularity brought by Jacinda Ardern.
Yeah, and I think that Turei was a handy scapegoat for some people so they could justify vote swapping on some sort of grand Moral Principles instead of that they were just an Ardern fan.
The surge of green popularity after her comments forced Labour’s leadership change.
I think that is wrong.
I know someone who had a phone conversation with Andrew Little the evening before he announced his decision to stand down. He told her he was exhausted… had no energy left and that he was going to step down in favour of Jacinda. That person tried to talk him out of it but he was adamant. It was entirely his own decision and HE WAS NOT PUSHED as has been cynically suggested by some.
He would have witnessed first hand Jacinda’s remarkable leadership abilities, and had seen the warmth with which she was received by all those who met her. He correctly – as it turned out – deduced that she was the best person to lead the party.
I have nothing but the utmost respect and admiration for him and look forward to him playing a very senior ministerial role in a Labour led coalition govt. which hopefully will include the Greens.
Newsense’s version of events isn’t incompatible with yours: Little would have to have very thick skin not to feel discouraged )”no energy left”) by Labour’s polling at the time.
Yes I accept that OAB, but my impression is that it was a decision he had been thinking about for some time. He knew he was not getting through to ‘Joe and Mary Bloggs’ and the polls were confirming it for him. His decision to stand down was not specifically a result of the rise in the Green vote.
The rise in the Green vote wouldn’t have happened if Labour had been getting any traction on poverty.
Had they been able to, the Greens wouldn’t have needed to throw Metiria’s grenade.
It’s all organic, feedback, response, etc. 🙂
+1 Anne
I saw Andrew three weeks before the leadership and he looked exhausted. The polls were bad before Metiria’s speech and he knew very well that no matter how hard he worked he was unlikely to persuade enough of those uncommitted voters to Labour. He hoped that by having Jacinda as deputy it would be enough but it wasn’t. I saw him after the campaign launch and he was beaming. He sacrificed his own ambitions for the sake of the party.
I think a fair bit of Labour’s rise has been from uncommitted as well as Green and NZF voters. There are many reasons Green voters have switched their votes. I basing this on anecdotal reports from friends, but I have not heard of anyone who against the idea of reviewing benefits in order to reduce poverty. However, several felt the issue was handled extremely badly and that had put them off.
I am sure the Green Party as a whole will be reviewing what went wrong after the election. Right now they are concentrating on getting the vote out. As I have said before, Labour will be able to be a better government in a strong partnership with the Greens, so hopefully they get at least 8%.
Yes, I’m hoping for an 8% Green turn-out too. It would be nice if it was higher but we have to be realistic. They suffered a largely media-orchestrated hit and may not get back up to where they were before.
stephen mills said umr had them at 7% yesterday
Then in all seriousness Karen,if you’re a progressively minded Labour voter, vote Green.
Vote NZ Labour and you/we get NZF. That’s how it’s sitting at the moment.
Karen has said a number of times she intends to party vote Green 🙂
https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-10092017/#comment-1381408
Just as well I used the word “if” then, innit? 😉
Okay, let me rephrase. Any prospective NZ Labour voter who considers themselves progressive or left has to vote Green (or electorate vote MP where applicable) unless they want to square the circle of being supposedly progressive or left yet voting to maintain Liberalism.
Pretty much. I’d add that any prospective Labour voter who wants to change the government needs to vote Green to make that a surer bet. Both are bloody good reasons, here’s hoping the message gets through. Also that people don’t fear vote Labour and drop the Greens below 5%.
(would be great to see a post on this btw 😉 ).
Has to? I dont think so. Your lens is your lens and not everyone else’s and you insult so many imo with the has to. (deleted)
Yes Marty. “Has to” unless they feel comfortable squaring that circle.
It’s a choice. (shrug)
wouldn’t be overly concerned mm…there are two very good indicators that there is no connection between what is said on here and what occurs in the wider world…party policy and the polls.
True that
I decided to party vote Green when they announced their policy on benefit reform and their climate change policy has reinforced this decision for me.
However, I disagree strongly that the Māori Party are progressive. I am very interested in Māori politics and so have been following them closely over the past couple of years (mostly through Māori commentators) and I am not at all impressed by the behaviour of their president or either of their MPs. They are not left-wing IMO, and would prefer to go with National if given the choice.
Call me old-fashioned, but I believe if you put a label on a box, that label should have a close relationship to what’s inside. Labour should be about the interests of people who work for their living, Conservatives should be conservative, Greens should be about environmental issues.
Climate change and the environment are my biggest issues, followed by equity issues such as taxation fairness, ensuring a basic minimum of healthy living to all. I’m also very science and evidence oriented. So I couldn’t bring myself to vote Green during the noughties, when the major publicly visible Green activities were around the likes of Sue Kedgley’s unscientific nuttery, Nandor’s helmet and anti-GMO stupidity, Sue Bradford’s social justice warrioring etc, with very little of their visible efforts going towards the environment.
Since ’08, the Greens appeared to have become much better oriented towards climate change and the environment, with the loonies like Steffan Browning mostly sidelined. So my support for the Greens firmed up, despite the Greens policies on things like vaccinations and GMOs kept feeble to pander to their irrational hippy faction rather than hardening up to say here’s what the scientific evidence says.
But when Metiria’s confession and subsequent reactions from the Greens made it look like the Greens were going to veer off into being mostly a beneficiary advocacy party, at the same time as Labour looked like taking the environment and climate change seriously, they lost my vote for a while (along with a bunch of other soft green voters I know).
Since then I’ve been watching closely, and Shaw appears to have steered the Greens back onto a balanced platform where social justice is still prominent, but not dominant. So they’ve got my vote back. I’m working on the others, but for some the old perception of Greens being watermelons has been too rudely reawakened.
Why is it necessary to need to keep pointing out on TS, that Green politics have never been just about environmental issues? The Green in Green politics and party has never meant it is just about environmental issues.
To repeat:
Green politics as stated by wikipedia:
It has always been about people within their environment and society. They are all intertwined.
NZ Green Party Charter:
The just distribution of social and natural resources is very important. The GP never stopped talking about the environment. Turei’s focus on poverty has been there a long time. And it has become even more pressing in the last couple of years, that the increasing injustice of poverty, homelessness, and our punitive welfare system be countered.
And to me, those who want to put these social justice issues on a back-burner, have no understanding of Green politics, nor a desire to correct some extremely damaging social injustices.
You’re talking about how the Greens perceive themselves. I’m talking about how i see Green MPs actually working and whether that’s closely enough aligned to my views to actually vote Green.
I don’t want social justice issues moved to a back-burner, but I also don’t want social justice issues to crowd out environment and climate change issues to back-burners either.
Well, they have a good focus on both in their policy. So why not get them into government and see what they do?
That’s pretty much the position I’ve swung back to after watching the remaining team over the last few weeks.
Not being in parliament at all is quite a ‘back burner’- its zero, zilich.
There should be a message from the lopsided support for Greens at previous election from well off urban electorates and much less in poorer seats.
If the Greens have a message about poverty and improving working peoples lives, those voters are not hearing it when they cast their vote. Social Justice to them is just a buzz word.
For me this is precisely why the having the Greens in Parliament (and even better, in Government) is so important. The Greens kaupapa is all about the nature of our Society and Environment. For far too long these have been treated as expendable for the benefit of our Economy. Since their inception, the Greens have been consistent in their advocacy of social and environmental issues and warning of the consequences of neglecting these elements which are critical to our ability to ALL live meaningful lives.
carolyn the relationship between these four principles are defined in the linking words
Non-Violence: is connected to Appropriate Decision-making: by the words
“Non-violent conflict resolution is the process by which ecological wisdom, social responsibility and appropriate decision making will be implemented. This principle applies at all levels.”
then Appropriate Decision-Making is connected to Social Responsibility: by the words
“For the implementation of ecological wisdom and social responsibility, decisions will be made directly at the appropriate level by those affected.”
then Social Responsibility is connected to “Ecological Wisdom:” by the words
“Unlimited material growth is impossible. Therefore the key to social responsibility is the just distribution of social and natural resources, both locally and globally.”
and finally Ecological wisdom declares itself with the words
“The basis of ecological wisdom is that human beings are part of the natural world. This world is finite, therefore unlimited material growth is impossible. Ecological sustainability is paramount.”
Think about these connecting texts. Their purpose is to establish a RELATIONSHIP between the four principles. what is your natural reading of those relationships? is that the same relationship as is described in the “four pillars” doctrine?
For one thing, “ecological sustainability” and “environmental sustainability” don’t have the same meaning.
The thing you’ve been saying is paramount turns out not to be the same as the thing declared as paramount by the Charter.
Yes there is a relationship between all four Principles but it is a dialectical relationship not a cause/effect relationship.
what the heck is a dialectical relationship? , and yes i did google but still cant see the connection
@Andre
Myself, I couldn’t vote for the Green Party of Turei, Delahunty and Browning, but now they’re all gone, I’m back in with a grin
(I still miss Fitzsimons, Donald and even Norman)
A.
Don’t worry. Once Marama gets going you’ll be able to start squealing again.
Me too, probably.
With joy, presumably.
Just out of curiosity, what has Delahunty done that offends you? Everything she’s done that I’ve been aware of, I’ve been neutral to supportive about.
Call it a mismatch of styles, I guess
The Mending the Safety Net policy has not changed. Shaw released Climate policy https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/green-party-launches-plan-get-nz-carbon-neutral-2050 at the same Conference as Metiria’s speech. What you seem to be describing is green media cut through. If Metiria had not had an outrageous story to tell then you would have heard very little about either policy.
If you want a labour Govt vote labour!
They don’t support ecological sustainability.
Not much chance of there being a Labour govt though. I’d say nearly no chance.
And if you want a progressive govt electorate vote Labour and Party vote Green
I want an inverse watermelon Government!
It’s a rare colour combination but it does exist… http://gem-sphalerite.com/inclusions-in-tourmaline/191-tourmaline-color-zoning-0319
Or really crap Red Delicious apples.
https://europeangreens.eu/news/german-greens-join-state-government-hesse-cdu
Green and Black government- but that was a while back but same happened in May last year with a Green Black government in Baden Wurttemburg.
More recently
Lower Saxony, the German state …., faces early elections after regional premier Stephan Weil lost his legislative majority with the defection of a Green lawmaker to Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats.
Politics is always full of surprises, to suggest Greens avoid the conservative parties doesnt match reality. Its not usual but certainly possible.
There’s a couple of moderations in Open Mike that you need to read and respond to.
Seen and responded to