Wow, what is up with this election, right?
David Clendon and Kennedy Graham last night attempted to force Metiria Turei’s resignation as female co-leader of the Green Party by saying they would quit if she didn’t, and their bluff has been called. James Shaw has since addressed the issue, and confirmed that he will be seeking to have them both removed from the Green Caucus, (for actions bringing the party into disrepute- as I have said elsewhere, Green MPs aren’t supposed to engineer leadership spills, and the party actually takes good behaviour rather seriously) although he will most likely not seek to remove them as MPs and replace them given how little time is left in this sitting of Parliament.
What this means in practice is that they will be removed from the Green Party List for the coming election, likely confirming Hayley Holt and Teal Crossen1 as MPs if the party holds ground on its average performance in polls, and possibly even Teanu Tuiono and Leilani Tamu as well, if it achieves its maximum bound to date. These are all excellent candidates who deserved to be further up the list, so in terms of political impact, it would be like Clare Curran doing the same thing in the Labour Party2. Teall can easily fill Kennedy Graham’s shoes in the Green caucus, so all they need to do is get sixteen seats (2 more) to make sure they’ve got someone with comparable mana to speak on climate issues and negotiations. I see this as the most likely interna cause of movement in upcoming polling of Green Party support, (continued coverage of Metiria may cause movement, but if anything it’s likely to increase support to the Greens, and a resurgence of Labour support may tempt some soft Greens support away in the polls) but I don’t know if we’ll actually see any dips because of this.
To clarify what’s going on here a little now that things are clearer, their objection was apparently related to Turei’s having been signed up in the wrong electorate and her refusal to resign after a weeks-long media beat up that has refused to dent Party support, not simply to her admission about her actions while on a benefit, as they were part of the decision to tell that story publicly, and that decision was made with consensus within the Green caucus. (ie. everyone agreed to support the decision) How one reconciles that initial decision with creating a perception of instability for the Greens with this late resignation is something I personally find baffling, but apparently they think there is some world in which that makes sense, and they are taking a principled stand by saying it’s wrong to withold information from the government, even though Metiria has very publicly admitted the very same thing to the media several times.
This strikes me as a rather good example of making a mountain out of a molehill. These were actions that, while technically a crime and rather stupid, came before she became an MP, and that two successive Prime Ministers haven’t been punished for performing because it’s the long-standing policy of the Electoral commission that you live where you bloody well say you do, so long as you can answer mail there. Nobody was actually taking seriously the possibility of dissension within Caucus until these two went to the media, and it doesn’t seem like they had actually made the leadership team adequately aware of their concerns, as nobody seems to have been aware that they weren’t fully onside.
These are people who served our country well as MPs to date, both performing well above average, but if they can’t stand by someone whose personal story has finally given us a real and honest conversation about poverty and the welfare system in New Zealand, then they needed to go, especially if they can’t respect the way that things are done within the Green Party, and can’t have an open and honest conversation about their problems. Metiria won’t resign unless she believes that she’s done her dash, Greens don’t do leadership coups or engineering resignations, and it’s appropriate for both men to not only stand down from the campaign, but be ejected from Caucus and even to potentially be kicked out of the party altogether given their breach of normal process.
1 The new Green Party list will likely be as follows, sticking to the top 20, as no poll thus far has suggested the Greens will break that particular milestone just yet. Note that at least 15 MPs are likely if the Greens hold ground, and as many as 18 are possible if the party achieves its highest results from current polling.
- Metiria Turei (Te Tai Tonga)
- James Shaw (Wellington Central)
- Marama Davidson (Tamaki Makaurau)
- Julie Anne Genter (Mt Albert)
- Eugenie Sage (Port Hills)
- Gareth Hughes (East Coast)
- Jan Logie (Mana)
- Chlöe Swarbrick (Maungakiekie)
- Golriz Ghahraman (Te Atatu)
- Mojo Mathers (Rangitata)
- Barry Coates (Epsom)
- Jack McDonald (Te Tai Hauauru)
- John Hart (Wairarapa)
- Denise Roche (Auckland Central)
- Hayley Holt (Helensville)
- Teall Crossen (Rongotai)
- Teanau Tuiono (Manurewa)
- Leilani Tamu (New Lynn)
- Matt Lawrey (Nelson)
- Chris Perley (Tukituki)
David vacates 16th position and the Northland electorate campaign while Kennedy vacates 8th and the North Shore campaign. I’ve also provided links to candidate pages for those people who have been bumped up two ranks by these resignations. If you’d like more info about the new top 14, or about people beyond rank 20, you can see the official page on the 2017 Green Party List.
2 Well, at least in the case of David Clendon, who has no significant public profile. Actually it’s a little unfair of a comparison even then, because Clendon is obviously more competent than Curran. Kennedy Graham was, essentially, the solid backbencher that gets down and does a lot of good work and has valuable expertise in a party that is currently over-stuffed full of front-bench level talent. He would have been a valuable MP if he could have acted with more honour, but given he pulled this stunt, he’s not worth having in the caucus.
It was Metiria who pulled the stunt. so —–
Please stand down from the leadership of the Green Party
for the good of the Green Party.
She’s getting massive amounts of support from the party, members, GP supporters and voters.
Ever heard of the echo chamber ?
She had 100% support from her caucus too until they were asked.
That doesn’t make sense.
If paying more attention to your support base than people who don’t vote for you is an echo chamber, sure. I still don’t get why people who don’t vote Green think they’re entitled to tell the Greens what to do.
Well, they will be entitled to a bit more input than usual if the Greens become part of the government, (as unlike the opposition, the government is theoretically accountable to the people) but yes, it is a bit bizarre.
It would be like me saying that National should sack Bennett, Collins, Smith, and Brownlee because they’re all incredibly unpopular nationally when you consider people who aren’t National supporters. That’s not how politics or government works.
why national only looks after there base the rich
Weka..+1
How many so called Green supporters will phone or text in, saying that they will withdraw their support from this political party?
First, let them give their name and make known their affiliation, no doubt these agitators are all right wing supporters.
+1000
Again, you seem to have missed the point that before Metiria Turei’s speech at the Green AGM, she actually put this issue to the entire Green Caucus, (as they do with most political strategy) and there was a consensus that her political strategy was sound and that people were comfortable with her making that admission so long as they were allowed to say that they think welfare fraud is wrong. (which even Turei herself has admitted)
Which is to say that both Kennedy and David backed her initial admission of lying to WINZ. If your problem was the initial admission, then you’re essentially disagreeing with the entire Green Party, not just Turei, because whoever replaced her would be just as keen on the same policies to address poverty, and would be just as likely to refuse to condemn what Turei did, and all 11 other caucus members are behind her, as is literally every Green member I know.
Please stay for the good of the party
I see the Narional Party Social Media Team is on a quick-response setting for this issue. You can judge their success by how much of the comments section is taken up with responses to their baiting
Before the race baiting comes out, i’d like to point out that Clendon is actually Maori.
These are guys that have served the environmental and pacificist movements for decades, it seems ungrateful to see a bunch of millenials go feral on them.
A worthwhile point to make. I saw some people decrying this as two white men attacking Metiria, which is a little ignorant, but I don’t entirely blame people because virtually nobody knows anything about Clendon. It’s two old men attacking Metiria though, so not entirely off the mark I suppose.
Also, for someone who’s talking out against race-baiting and honouring people’s mana, you’re painting millennials with an awfully large brush. I’m a millenial, and I hope my take didn’t seem particularly feral. The only person I’ve actually seen step rhetorically out of line was one of the young-greens co-convenors, who probably shouldn’t have told them both to “f— off,” but I can absolutely sympathise (and even agree with) the depth of feeling there. My initial reaction was similar, I simply phrased it with a more mild “I hope the door doesn’t hit them on the way out.”
I’m sure that the two conservative-greens were as offended by the bad language as they were by someone putting down the wrong electoral address so they could vote for McGillicuddy Serious, lol
It’s been eye opening seeing what some regular posters really think when they are upset. Painting this as some sort of male failing just makes (those) green supporters look out of touch with reality and adds to the greens current poor public showing.
Rapid descent in to identity politics is bad form.
My opinion of Metiria has fallen over this, although James Shaw has fronted well.
I’m not a regular green voter and certainly won’t be any time soon despite liking many of their policies.
It’s the greens business whether or not to keep Metiria as co leader, just as it’s their business whether they more interested in listening to the sound of their own voices than what voters think.
Hope it plays out for them, don’t think they are on a winner.
Well, I think it was more coming from a place where people were feeling like saying “look, two old men are not likely to be particularly in touch with the realities of being a single mother, so they should be a lot more careful before the criticise.”
Twitter in particular, where a lot of this discussion was had, tends to get a bit feral because it’s hard to express nuance and depth of feeling within that character limit unless you thread together responses.
We’ll see how the latest stuff plays out, but unless there’s a dramatic crash in support or a continued increase, it will be hard to tease out “people leaving the Greens because of the resignations of Clendon and Graham” vs “people leaving the Greens because of Ardern’s new Labour Party.”
It’s two old men attacking Metiria though, so not entirely off the mark I suppose.
As are Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn.
These casual, thoughtless ageist cracks that are being scattered around quite a bit lately, aren’t usually worth making a fuss about, but they’re unhelpful and irksome all the same.
Besides once you’ve defined your elders as your enemies, you’re betting on the expectation you never grow to their age yourself.
Well put!
Come on, do you really think it’s unfair to say that two men who grew up in a time before single mothers became a demographic might find it hard to understand what it’s like for a single mother on the benefit, and to correctly work out the moral calculus of Metiria’s situation?
I’m not intending to define the older generation as categorically my enemy nor making ageist remarks. (I’m sure you’ll remember from my earlier comments on TS that in fact I am right behind both Corbyn and Sanders, especially against allegations that Sanders is in any way a sexist) What I was trying to get at is that it’s not unreasonable to see Kennedy and David within the framing of men of an older generation who don’t understand what life is like for single-parent families, a criticism that is not entirely unreasonable. (It may be unfounded on closer evaluation, but this criticism was largely coming from people whose association with the Green Party was pretty casual at best, so I wouldn’t have expected them to look into things that closely)
Well, I am a middle aged married white male who has some thoughts on Metiria, now watch me as I shut my fucking face.
Sorry, I missed it. Can you do it again, please?
I am 70.
I am disgusted at the faux moralising by rednecks howling for Turei’s crucifixion.
Come on, do you really think it’s unfair to say that two men who grew up in a time before single mothers became a demographic might find it hard to understand what it’s like for a single mother on the benefit, and to correctly work out the moral calculus of Metiria’s situation?
My own father who is the other side of 90 correctly works it out. There is nothing especially ‘new’ about single/un-wed mothers.
I agree that’s how it should be viewed, but among the good guys who don’t lean on their age as an excuse there are of course occassional dinosaurs and I can understand why people drew that conclusion based purely on “optics.” It’s not necessary right (in fact, I suspect in Graham’s case it was actually more about some very distinct moral reasoning that he shares with his more right-wing family members that immoral acts don’t have moral contexts and are simply inherently wrong or right, with no utilitarian calculus to be performed, and that MPs have to be “above that” sort of thing and very clear in advocating that type of morality. Which I view as a little bit holier-than-thou, but could have easily respected if he had gone through the normal Party processes to express his concern rather than rushing straight to the media)
The point is that now that it is time to actually care about people close up and personal, they reveal their main preoccupation is the environment – the trees and not the huggers – and apparently pacificism which is to reduce war which is a way of devastating the environment and the people.
The problem is that they had little empathy with a woman’s struggle to get training and a job that she could do lifelong and which would support her, is at the nub of this matter. For Maori the call is He tangata, he tangata, he tangata and for the environmentalist it is to care for and nurture all of the earth and its creatures, including human unmarried mothers.
+1
May I suggest that everyone who is so supportive of this woman and her criticism of the current social welfare system, read the latest post by James Kunstler at Klusterfuck Nation.
The last three sentences will do if your pressed for time.
The future you’re all hoping for,is not the one that’s coming.
It’s time to WAKE UP!
Dude, you couldn’t even paste three sentences?
I’ll save you all time- don’t read that post, it’s economically illiterate, (doesn’t understand how national debt works) bunker-mentality, (literally- he at one point says not to live in cities, you’ll be in trouble “when civilization collapses”) and that “last three sentences” bit is referring directly to some dogwhistled bene-bashing.
If you do hate yourself though, feel free to visit http://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/just-wait-little/ and gouge out your eyeballs all you want.
edit: or, for those who just want the “critical three sentences”:
That blog is a very unkind thing to inflict upon people just because you disagree with their choice of political leader. 😉
lols
So on top of everything else, we’re all dooooooommmeedd!!!!! 🙂
My God, he’s right! All these “useless eaters,” these “lives unworthy of life” who aren’t out there earning their next meal – something must be done about it!
My question always is the same to people who rant on about the world owes you nothing. Then why do you not fight harder to remove inheritance? Que – I make no sense – 123…
You mean cue people saying you make no sense? I’m pretty sure you’re conflating “cue,” which as a noun means “a prompt or excitation to action” with “queue,” which means “a line formed for the purpose of waiting.” Naturally they both come in both noun and verb forms, and mixing the spellings of both together.
But yes, it’s quite frankly astounding that people who claim to support equality of opportunity and want to remove entitlements are also strangely reluctant to take a hard line on making inherited wealth illegal. If you believe in equality of opportunity, any inherited wealth at all is a problem.
looks more like Fawlty towers/mcSpañol to me…
Yeah it did look a little like spanglish at first, but think about it, “queue” and “cue” are homophones, so like “wouldn’t’ve” and “wouldn’t of,” (which are near-homophones) they’ll end up being confused. So it was likely an attempt to write “cue” that ended up confusing it with “queue” compounded by not realising how ridiculously we spell the word “queue” in the English language when actually it should be something more like “kyu.”
I would just add that ‘wouldn’t of’ is a barbarism and solecism that should be exterminated. Bring back the Grammar Daleks!
It seems that the whole caucus was happy with the original strategy to “fess up” to get mileage around the poverty trap.
My reading of things (possibly wrong) is that the latter stuff that appeared in the paper around the electoral voting and mum being in the house (not sure why the latter was bad tho) may not have been discussed, and its that information which tipped the two MPs over.
I understand why the GP supporters are unhappy with the two men, but Im pretty disappointed to see that the GP membership/supporters/MPs are as feral as all the other parties.
I guess they were just better at hiding their disagreements
I’ve seen a few comments go hard against the two MPs but I’ve also seen more comments telling people to not be mean. Haven’t been on FB though. So not really sure what you mean. People will have opinions to express, that’s not a problem in an election.
I didn’t see the post-caucus press conference, but a commentator on RNZ an hour ago shared impressions. Apparently the caucus decided not to expel them from the party, or even from caucus. The framing was that they agreed to withdraw from caucus till the election. The female co-convenor who was publicly derogatory to the two guys was made to apologise. Seems like all the players had cooled down sufficiently to try & patch up a compromise, and if it holds, that will be an outcome that limits the damage to the public standing of the GP.
weka 1.39pm
I have never made a adverse comment about Metiras admitted benefit fraud, but the msm including tv and radio have ( readers, viewers and listeners ).
Imo the forthcoming polls will down her as they did to Andrew.
In the mean time I believe her continued refusal to step down shows a arrogance ( it is not bravery ) which will cause serious damage to the Greens and the left block.
We all have to wait and see, but by then her resignation could be to late to save the day.
Yes, billy-boy we know your views. 🙄
Anne 3.41pm.
A Pound to a shilling they will become a fact.
Don’t not how to do the smiley face.
All the best.
They won’t, as Turei just said today in response to a hypothetical 8% polling and whether she would resign then that she is definitely not resigning before the election.
It’s really interesting to watch, the Greens just sticking to their kaupapa and Turei refusing to resign just because some media numpties think the received wisdom is it’s time for her to stand down.
Even after all this time they still don’t get it that the Greens do politics differently 😆
Meteria has guts. She’ll still be there when you’re not even a bad memory.
Yes Anne,…. we are not getting hundreds or even dozens of posters calling for Metirias resignation ….
Just Bill Murray the ugly face of Labour ….. posting obsessivly and trying to do the job of dozens ……. hunting with the trolls
And creating an impression only of himself…..
Has Bill M ever called for Bill english to resign over his falsifications and scamming $32,000 in accomdiation allowances ?….
After all Englis and his “Greed” crime is much worse than a solo parents and their ‘need’ crime.
Billy’s not Labour reason. I think he has claimed here in the past that he is… he isn’t. If he ever was Labour I’m picking his intolerant, reactionary attitude caused him to be isolated to the point where he had no choice but to leave.
My bad Anne ….. I formed the wrong impression when he was proclaiming the inside word for Labours ‘head office’ … in one of his posts.
I sometimes mix up the unpleasant types/trolls … Bill reminded me of some other Labour bad apples I once disagreed with in a ‘Hone’ thread …. regarding the co-operation … at the last election ….. between National, Labour, Simon Lusk, Act, Nz first etc…… to get Hone out of parliament.
Last election Labour levereged another attack on a social justice politician…. it was probably national voters that got Kelvin Davis elected.
Feed the kids ??? nah …. lets all get Hone….
This feels the same to me …… and its notable this elections .. the target is the only party that did not join in the politcal mugging and underhand games used against Hone.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/mediawatch/audio/201779410/dirty-politics-players-back-in-the-frame
You can’t help what your supporters do, you can only tell them to be better and show them the way. If you want to see what Greens behave like, look at the caucus and look at Party members. There were one or two party members that could have expressed themselves more cleanly, but I didn’t see anyone I actually knew was a party member getting anything near “feral.”
The only one I objected to was the comment by the Young Greens co-convener, really, which now that I’ve reviewed it in context is actually much more mild than I had remembered it- “fuck kennedy and david tbh ;)” is basically just an irreverant way of saying “I don’t care about Kennedy and David.” (Seriously, have a look at people saying “fuck X tbh” on twitter. They’re mostly saying “I don’t have time for X” when viewed in context) I had thought it contained “fuck off,” which is very different from “fuck X tbh.”
‘I don’t have time for’ you, Matthew.
I dont do FB for politics so cant comment on that.
But on the “two greens Go” section here (now complete with 396 comments) I thought the general tone was pretty feral.
It was the invective/savage response that stood out to me.
Kennedy Graham has always struck me as a very considered sort of person and he most certainly expressed his opinion (which you say isnt a problem in an election) and he got an internet bashing of bigly proportions.
Which is tantamount to saying thoroughly nice people are incapable of behaving like total pratts.
You know (for e.g.) Chris Finlayson is normally a thoroughly nice person. It’s just that when surrounded by self-entitled holier-than-thou gentry, it rubs off with an accelerant applied.
Ok, we’re using the word feral differently. In that thread I saw a relative consistency across commenters that what the 2 MPs had done was wrong. I hope you’re not suggesting they are above criticism.
Graham’s problem isn’t that he expressed an opinion, and if think that’s what people are angry about then you’ve not been paying attention.
Indeed. The problem is that they went straight to the media rather than working things out with the caucus, that they tried to engineering a leadership coup, (this is literally the first time that has ever happened, the only appropriate time for a challenge is at the party AGM, and even then, nobody’s ever done it before, they’ve always waited for resignations because the party culture has been that it’s more important to be collaborative than to advance personally) and that they did both of these things, which are outside of normal behaviour within the party, in the middle of an election campaign and at a time when we have just had another party in this pre-election coalition have its own leadership change, and in a time when the media has been spinning full-tilt to try and discredit the debate the party is trying to have about poverty, effectively transitioning the story back to being about whether Metiria is a viable leader rather than what really matters: how people are doing in New Zealand.
IMO they are quite lucky that Shaw has relaxed a bit since yesterday and is willing to set aside whether to expel them from the party rolls altogether. It would absolutely have been reasonable to exile them for a while and let them apply again later if they want back in.
Please. Nobody resigned. Leaving caucus ain’t resigning. Noise in politics is essential to keeping attention and communicate yourself to voters. MT did nothing more than Key did in not living in the constituency, nothing more than English did paying back double Dipton, nothing more than any taxpayer does that claims family credits but does not declare their student son paying cash towards up keep, cash in hand jobs, mates crashing on the couch and buying a round, facts are than criminalising a benefitary when middle class rorts abound is the greater crime. Two hundred dollars a week should not mean winz rule them removing all means to make a extra buck in native capitalism. why do the Nats hate entrepuerism. and then winz does not have the capacity to enforce every social economic transgression. where fraud does happen and should be decried is when it’s so explicit, so enriching, that any reasonable person would say it’s a crime. making ends meet does not qualify.
Clendon and Graham did resign, from the 2017 Green campaign, and if it wasn’t so close to the election, they would have had to choose between resigning from Parliament or being kicked out by the Greens. Instead they “just” get kicked from Caucus so as not to make unnecessary paperwork.
Or. Nats were not biting so Greens have an internal stoush to keep the issue live. That using welfare to abuse poor people is wrong, costly, self serving.
Read the nuances. It was an exercising in peacemaking. Did they get kicked from caucus? Not according to RNZ news. It was framed as their choice. The spectre of expulsion vanished overnight. The caucus met to consider suspension, but that didn’t happen either. Anyone asserting their subjective take on events as fact is performing spin, not being factual.
Seems to me all agreed to a resolution because they knew the split was historic, had started visualising how history would record it, and then realised it was in their common interests to reframe our perceptions pronto.
Meh , all these shenanigans.
Lets just get the Greens and Labour in power and give Metiria Turei a Damehood for services to the New Zealand public . For those without a voice, for those who are marginalized , for those who are poor and those who are chronically ill.
And be done with it.
Oh . And rescind John Keys knighthood.
And no more of this palaver.
WGBH Music: The Chieftains – The Frost is All Over (Live) – YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VND5EkAGC4
Good on you WK.
F… Yeah WK, I’m with ya.
Having watched the news its obvious this is all about getting at labour not the Greens.
what was on the news?
Greens getting slammed and the Nats new line is ” labour joined at the hip” to the greens through MOU.
Media running with it.
This is a similar level of hate-mania levelled at Corbyn, and look what happened there. And in NZ the balance of power is much closer.
Keep the convo on Met standing up for the poorest, even Hooton tried to spin it as ‘no one cares what she did, it’s about what she’s doing’.
“He policy, he policy, he policy” as the saying goes*.
*not really, but may as well
Matthew wrote yesterday “The problem is that they went straight to the media rather than working things out with the caucus, that they tried to engineering a leadership coup” but I haven’t seen any evidence that this is true.
I saw Kennedy Graham explaining that he had been expressing his disapproval of her stand to the other Green MPs ever since she announced it at the party conference. Looks like they were blind-sided. Incredible that she didn’t bother to obtain caucus consensus prior to her public disclosure.
Gower told TV3 viewers this morning that there’s a poll being released on tonight’s 3News but it probably isn’t recent enough to establish the extent of damage caused to the GP by her bad decision-making.
…there’s a poll being released on tonight’s 3News but it probably isn’t recent enough to establish the extent of damage caused to the GP by her bad decision-making.
I don’t know Dennis Frank. I received a call from Reid Research last night around 6pm.
The caller was carrying out a survey on behalf of Newshub. They were only interested in talking to people between the ages of 35 and 44yrs. I failed the age test by three decades. 🙁
Strike a blow to the Greens while the iron is hot eh?
I suspect that means they already had enough respondents in other age brackets Anne, and were just having to complete their research in that particular bracket when they called you.
I’ll be voting Green for the 10th election in a row regardless of the shambles, but that won’t stop me informing folks online about what they’re doing wrong. I just listened to Guyon Espiner talking to James Shaw yesterday morning on the RNZ site and James confirmed that they had been working through the lack of consensus in caucus for the prior couple of weeks. That testimony proves Matthew wrong.
He said he thought consensus had been achieved but things changed over the weekend and the two guys broke the 48 hour notification rule when they went public with their stand. If so, they are in the wrong in that respect. However, James wasn’t able to articulate a specific caucus decision that established consensus. His subjective impression that they’d reached consensus doesn’t suffice. Nobody can operate democratic decision-making processes on the basis of subjective impressions, and James would probably concede that. Looks very much like a process failure to me.