New Greens male co-leader: James Shaw

Written By: - Date published: 2:15 pm, May 30th, 2015 - 283 comments
Categories: greens - Tags:

The new male co-leader of the Green Party is James Shaw.

More soon!

Update: Stuff has coverage of Shaw’s speech, still waiting on a full transcript to be posted at Scoop or somesuch.

283 comments on “New Greens male co-leader: James Shaw ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. millsy 1
    30 May 2015 at 2:17 pm

    Looks like you scooped both the NZ Herald and Stuff. I had to come here to find out. Well done TS.

  2. weka 2
    30 May 2015 at 2:20 pm

    Shaw’s speech is live here now http://livestream.com/nzgreens/AGM

    • weka 2.1
      30 May 2015 at 2:25 pm

      “The campaign for the Green Party to enter government in 2017, that just started”

      • Kiwiri 2.1.1
        30 May 2015 at 6:09 pm

        If Nats are smart with this co-leader, they can lock out Labour for another term .. or two.

        • Ovid 2.1.1.1
          30 May 2015 at 6:12 pm

          Maybe one term, but the Greens can look to the example of the Lib Dems in the UK if they follow that direction.

          • Kiwiri 2.1.1.1.1
            30 May 2015 at 6:31 pm

            Nats should find it easier to work with James, rather than with Kevin.

  3. mary_a 3
    30 May 2015 at 2:30 pm

    A turning point for the NZ Greens.

    Well done TS for being first to announce this news. At the time of posting this, still waiting for it to be posted up on msm! Could be a long wait I think.

  4. One Anonymous Bloke 4
    30 May 2015 at 2:35 pm

    Fisiani’s favourite. What did Shaw do to deserve that tr*ll’s attention anyway?

    • adam 4.1
      30 May 2015 at 2:39 pm

      Probably because Boomer has a dislike for Shaw. Maybe?

    • Stephanie Rodgers 4.2
      30 May 2015 at 2:39 pm

      The rightwingers were all singing from the same songsheet on that one, up to you whether you think that was genuine support, reverse psychology, or some convoluted triple-bluff conspiracy against him! (Personally I go with “the real goal is to agitate and sow uncertainty”.)

      • marty mars 4.2.1
        30 May 2015 at 2:44 pm

        Yep – doing a hooton but I think the sheepskin rug is a bit itchy on a wolfs back…

      • weka 4.2.2
        30 May 2015 at 2:48 pm

        I’m going with they still have no fucking clue what the GP is. Not sure why their ideas are in any way relevant.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 4.2.2.1
          30 May 2015 at 2:51 pm

          That’s my pick too. Whatever the narrative is, it’s in Fisiani’s head.

      • Matthew Hooton 4.2.3
        30 May 2015 at 5:47 pm

        It was a minimum of a quadruple-bluff conspiracy

      • b waghorn 4.2.4
        30 May 2015 at 5:55 pm

        “the real goal is to agitate and sow uncertainty”.)
        That’s where I’d put my money too ,

  5. marty mars 5
    30 May 2015 at 2:41 pm

    From his email

    I know this will be hard work, but it’s worth it – because we can change the system. We can win. And we have to, because our current system is broken.

    We have an economy that encourages people and companies to extract as much short term wealth as they can, from the environment or from their workers, regardless of the damage they cause, because they don’t have to pay for it.

    We can win – yes and the start of that is the belief. Good luck and kia kaha with this appointment.

  6. RedBaronCV 6
    30 May 2015 at 2:45 pm

    He’s a good bloke , he’s Nacts nightmare, and as enviromental concerns go mainstream he’ll be leading the charge.
    Greens had a lot of great people to pick from ,good to see the depth, it must have been a hard choice. Forward

    • maui 6.1
      30 May 2015 at 3:05 pm

      I think you’re right, the Nats will see him as a big threat like they did Cunliffe and it won’t take be long before the attack dogs are unleashed.

    • Chooky 6.2
      30 May 2015 at 3:11 pm

      +100…as long as “he’s Nacts nightmare”…this is good enough for me…because they are the problem with laissez faire lack of environmental protection and regulation…

      I like the fact that he decided not to drive when he was 16 for environmental reasons….this shows real Green commitment…but now cars are going electric he is learning to drive….also he was brought up by a solo Mother …this should give him compassion for the underdog…(although admittedly it didnt in jonkey Nacts case)

      http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11456155

      https://www.greens.org.nz/ourpeople/james-shaw-mp

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Shaw_%28New_Zealand_politician%29

      https://home.greens.org.nz/candidates/james-shaw

    • Nick K 6.3
      30 May 2015 at 3:28 pm

      Righto, let’s take a look at that. The Nats have beaten Clark, Goff, Shearer, Cunliffe and Little is going the same way. Yet somehow this no-name with 7 months experience is their nightmare?

      And he and you guys think yo can win in 2017 from 20 points adrift?

      *shakes head*

      • RedBaronCV 6.3.1
        30 May 2015 at 3:43 pm

        Perhaps I should have said Nacts nightmare in terms of a new green leader.

        And thanks for confirming that the Nacts will be using every dirty trick in the book to destabilise him as they have done to succesive labour leaders.

        But looks like he has the ability to frame greens core values in terms soft Nact supporters understand.

        • Clemgeopin 6.3.1.1
          30 May 2015 at 8:43 pm

          “But looks like he has the ability to frame greens core values in terms soft Nact supporters understand

          That is the important point. He must attract Blue National votes to make an effective difference, rather than from Labour.

          I also think that JA Gentre will also make an advantageous co-leader for the party with Shaw, sometime in the future.

          • Colonial Rawshark 6.3.1.1.1
            30 May 2015 at 9:36 pm

            Why would a Blue Green voter choose to vote for the Greens unless the Greens signalled that they would be willing to work more closely with National?

            • RedBaronCV 6.3.1.1.1.1
              30 May 2015 at 9:56 pm

              I’m talking about the soft voter who as the dairy price falls starts thinking “I’d rather have clean rivers than peak overseas owned cow. ” So why would they want the greens to work with NAct?
              and lets face it the party of the greedy’s Nact would have a very hard time changing sufficently to want to work with an ‘enviromental preserving & sharing within the community’ party.

              I’m not talking about the mythical blue green voter who stays within the NAct party – how they coexist within themselves beats me.

            • Clemgeopin 6.3.1.1.1.2
              30 May 2015 at 11:47 pm

              See RedBaronCV at 6.3.1.1.1.1

              I mean something like that. Full coalition of Greens and National is not impossible, but an unwise poisoned chalice for both parties.

              Only Labour can give the Greens better and more meaningful important policy concessions, as long as they are not too demanding too soon for too many concessions nor demanding too many high profile cabinet posts like they very foolishly and prematurely did BEFORE the last election and scared the shit out of many potential voters, I think. (my opinion)

      • Judge Holden 6.3.2
        30 May 2015 at 4:51 pm

        A better proposition than David Seymour (or Jamie Whyte, John Banks, and Don Brash), though, right Kearney?

      • Matthew Whitehead 6.3.3
        30 May 2015 at 5:27 pm

        National never really “beat” any of those leaders, Labour just hasn’t sorted out its own house and come together. Once they do, there’s a credible coalition partner there waiting for them and National in their current state won’t be able to put up a credible defense. It’s really just a matter of when labour get their things together and start agreeing on stuff.

  7. RedBaronCV 7
    30 May 2015 at 2:47 pm

    and completely off topic perhaps we need some short hand to match “neolib economic”
    perhaps “envirocommunitism ??!!”

  8. Nick 8
    30 May 2015 at 2:53 pm

    I went along to a Local Greens meeting a month ago and there were many new people there all interested in having a say in the leadership. It seemed liked the new people liked Shaw and those who were more regular Green party people liked Hague.

  9. Karen 9
    30 May 2015 at 2:55 pm

    I feel very sad for Kevin. A really good person in every way.

    I don’t know much about James Shaw except he is a very good speaker. I shall watch with interest to find out more about his personal values, but I suspect his business background will make it more difficult for right wingers to push their “Green Party are economic loonies” meme.
    I was a bit annoyed at Shaw using his acceptance speech to have a dig at Labour, however. Unnecessary and not helpful.

    • Chooky 9.1
      30 May 2015 at 3:19 pm

      i enjoyed that bit of the speech….well deserved imo

      • Karen 9.1.1
        30 May 2015 at 5:24 pm

        Labour and the Greens need to work together if we are to get rid of the Nact government. That means neither party putting the boot in to the other.

        It was a stupid thing for Shaw to say, but hopefully he will learn from this.

        • Chooky 9.1.1.1
          30 May 2015 at 5:51 pm

          the Greens are not anyone’s poodle….least of all the incompetent Labour Party’s

          …Shaw was stating the obvious….the Greens do have a better selection process because the neolib compromised Labour Party’s selection betrays its own grassroots membership and knifed its grassroots elected leader David Cunliffe in the back

          the Greens should NOT be self -censoring themselves and pussyfooting around a Party which has a lot in common with Nactional imo….eg the TPP and the Spy Bill

          Labour is a passe neolib party …the Greens and Mana/Int and NZF are not…why should they shut up about the truth?…particularly when Labour showed no signs of wanting to work co-operatively with them in the last election under MMP?…and lost the election for the Left!

          • Karen 9.1.1.1.1
            30 May 2015 at 6:58 pm

            Who said anything about being anybody’s poodle? I am talking about the Labour and Greens co-operating to get rid of the Nacts, and that needs both to avoid bad-mouthing the other party.

            You may have missed it, but Internet Mana don’t exist any more. Mana’s leader Hone Harawira has acknowledged that their polling showed it was the “Moment of Truth” that killed their chance of getting into parliament.

            NZ First are poles apart from the Greens , particularly on social and environmental issues, and Winston put the boot into Internet Mana to a much greater degree than Labour ever did.

            I was as upset as you were about what some Labour MPs did to David Cunliffe, but I also want to get rid of the Nats, and there is no chance of that without Labour (even though in my ideal world we would have a Green government).

            Continually bad mouthing Labour will mean the Nats stay in power.

            • ankerawshark 9.1.1.1.1.1
              30 May 2015 at 7:58 pm

              1000+ Karen. Totally agree

            • Colonial Rawshark 9.1.1.1.1.2
              30 May 2015 at 8:15 pm

              Labour need no less than 3 or 4 terms in order to make any material difference to the 50 year future of the nation. And a weak one term LAB/GR government will end up locking the left out of power for several subsequent terms.

              And that means that the Labour win must be a very strong one, and must be based on it thinking, acting and visualising in completely different ways than it has been used to.

            • linda 9.1.1.1.1.3
              31 May 2015 at 8:57 am

              the report from doctor Cullen said the left as a whole are cannonballing the same vote so the end result is the same fuckin john key

    • MrSmith 9.2
      30 May 2015 at 3:45 pm

      And the fact that he is a good speaker is paramount, the leaders job is to front up and articulate and defend the parties position. Something Key does badly at times, but at-least he fronts and Kiwis like that.

    • weka 9.3
      30 May 2015 at 4:02 pm

      I thought the dig at Labour was unwise, something for an inhouse joke not being live streamed. I’ll be interested to see if the media make anything of it. On the other hand, we are a still waiting for Labour to get its act together, and this is what happens when it takes too long.

      • Colville. 9.3.1
        30 May 2015 at 4:31 pm

        The easiest votes for the Greens to win at the mo are from Labour so why wouldnt Shaw hit the ground running?

        • sabine 9.3.1.1
          30 May 2015 at 5:15 pm

          Peter Effn Dunne
          Nikki Kaye

          thanks to the Green Party.

          if the Green Party wants to go to government, and If the Green Party does not want to go hand in hand with National despite the national cycle way of upmost importance than maybe the Green Party should remember that alone they go nowhere and at the same time make space for Peter Effn Dunne and Nikki Kaye.

          so glasshouse and stones.

          • SHG 9.3.1.1.1
            30 May 2015 at 5:34 pm

            Yes! All those left votes are Labour’s by divine right, and the Green supporters in those electorates should just STFU and vote Labour like they’re told.

            • weka 9.3.1.1.1.1
              30 May 2015 at 5:37 pm

              In the case of Dunne, only 1/4 of the GP voters need to vote Labour and Dunne would be gone. Not an unreasonable ask seeing as how it’s a reward in itself and not something to be done for Labour.

            • sabine 9.3.1.1.1.2
              30 May 2015 at 6:22 pm

              two words

              strategic voting

              sometimes we vote to keep someone out, especially when we know that we can’t get our own in.
              and yes, labour could have had that seat, if the greens and labour would have worked together, or if the green despite not working with labour would have held their noses and voted for labour.

              now we have Mr. Synthetic Canabis, Mr. lets cuts library services to schools in parliament and he will suck National genitalia be they male or female anytime it is asked of him.

              so yeah…go poopoo somewhere else. This is what purity voting gets us. Peter Effn Dunne.

          • weka 9.3.1.1.2
            30 May 2015 at 5:34 pm

            yeah, and Te Tai Tokerau, right?

            They all need their heads banging together over concessions.

            But Shaw’s dig at Labour wasn’t about that, it was about how to run a leadership campaign. He was talking about how at the start the Greens decided to behave like adults and be respectful and not do the same shit that Labour does (that’s me paraphrasing).

            • Stephanie Rodgers 9.3.1.1.2.1
              30 May 2015 at 5:41 pm

              Does the “same shit” include slagging off one’s competitors as a “Wellington metrosexual who can’t drive”?
              http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11455774

              • weka …
                30 May 2015 at 5:49 pm

                Doesn’t read like a slagging off to me,

                Mr Hague is sceptical of Mr Shaw’s leadership credentials. He says the MP was only one part of the Greens’ popularity in Wellington, and his recipe for success does not translate to South Auckland, suburban areas and provincial centres. Would he be at home speaking on a marae, to farmers or to trade unionists, Mr Hague asked, and could the wider population relate to a Wellington-based, metrosexual MP who doesn’t drive?

                But yeah, Hague did seem the most personally critical of the four. Was the metro-sexual bit the worst of it? Still seems pretty tame.

                • Stephanie Rodgers …
                  30 May 2015 at 6:31 pm

                  “Tame” isn’t the issue. Holding up the Greens’ leadership contest as some pure, inspiring example of ~true democracy~ compared to Labour’s is mean-spirited and hypocritical given the kind of slagging off I saw both publicly and privately (and I’m not even a Greens member).

                  If that’s not what Shaw intended, I’m sorry, but making sweeping “we do things better than you neener neener” generalisations always leaves one open to misinterpretation.

                  • weka …
                    30 May 2015 at 6:44 pm

                    Can you clarify, is the metro-sexual comment the worst you saw? Because it doesn’t look a like a slagging off to me.

                    I’ve said I think it was a mistake for Shaw to say make this comment. I don’t know what he intended.

                    • Sacha …
                      30 May 2015 at 11:33 pm

                      The distinction will be the conduct of defeated candidates.

                    • Stephanie Rodgers …
                      30 May 2015 at 11:51 pm

                      Calling Shaw a metrosexual was not the worst slagging off of Green candidates which I saw, no.

                      But I think it’s disingenuous to focus on “but that particular word wasn’t that bad so it’s not the same” when the point is that some people have tried to cast the Greens leadership election as fundamentally different to Labour’s, in terms of “niceness” or “cleanness” … when it wasn’t the case, and when the new male co-leader jumped straight onto the “snarking Labour’s internal conflicts” bandwagon in his first speech in the role.

                    • weka …
                      31 May 2015 at 12:12 am

                      There are two things here. One is whether it’s true that there is a difference between the parties, the other is whether Shaw should have said such a thing in public. I think the first is true, and I think Shaw shouldn’t have said so. I’m not going to enter into semantic arguments about this, it’s pretty obvious that there are distinct differences, even process and structural ones, between the two parties.

                      I haven’t heard anything close to slagging off going on, but am fine if you want to describe it.

                      +1 Sacha.

                    • felix …
                      31 May 2015 at 3:08 am

                      To see the difference between the nature and conduct of the parties, you only have to look at the reasons for the last four Green leadership changes and the reasons for the last four of Labour’s.

                    • Stephanie Rodgers …
                      31 May 2015 at 10:21 am

                      To see the difference between the nature and conduct of the parties, you only have to look at the reasons for the last four Green leadership changes and the reasons for the last four of Labour’s.

                      That doesn’t really scan, felix. The Greens and Labour have inherently different leadership structures. A Greens leader literally cannot be rolled in the same way as a Labour leader. Of course the reasons are going to look different.

                    • felix …
                      31 May 2015 at 10:50 am

                      That’s a huge part of it, and exactly what I was referring to.

                      They don’t behave differently because they have different structures, they’re inherently different cultures and that’s why they’ve built inherently different structures.

                      One obvious outcome of the Green’s culture and structure is that leadership can be regularly refreshed without the party tearing itself to shreds.

                      Another is that members can describe each other as metrosexual without it being taken as a hideous insult.

            • Karen 9.3.1.1.2.2
              30 May 2015 at 5:47 pm

              But the jibe wasn’t respectful, and was totally unnecessary.

              As I have said, I hope he learns from this.

              • weka …
                30 May 2015 at 5:51 pm

                I’ve already said I thought it was an unwise thing to say in public, but he sounded to me like he was talking to the GP inner circles and shorthanding. I also hope he learns from this.

                Little tweeted a nice congrats.

              • Clemgeopin …
                30 May 2015 at 9:12 pm

                I don’t think that the Labour party leader or previous leaders slag off the Greens at all by making derogatory remarks.

            • sabine 9.3.1.1.2.3
              30 May 2015 at 6:25 pm

              I agree, not happy about Hone at all. And i have said so to my labour representative.

              I don’t vote by colour, i vote by policy and urgency. So in my life i have voted labour, greens, socialist, SPD, die Gruenen, Die Linke.

              voting for National, or the conservatives, or any other of the right leaning, conservative or christian conservative party in my mind is against my best interest as a women.

              But I absolutly loathe stupid voting and purity voting. We have a choice to make in MMP and it goes above Party belonging and singing Kumbaya.

          • maui 9.3.1.1.3
            30 May 2015 at 6:14 pm

            The Greens campaigning is all about wanting the Party Vote. Should they even be standing a candidate in those close electorates? I don’t see the point.

            • weka 9.3.1.1.3.1
              30 May 2015 at 6:21 pm

              Electorate campaigning increases the party vote in that electorate. Shaw got 5,000 electorate votes in the Wellington Central, but the GP got 11,500 party votes in that electorate (it’s one of the things he campaigned on, his ability to increase the vote).

              In Ōhāriu, the GP candidate got 2,700 and the party got 5,600. They won’t give up those numbers lightly (although I still think they should suck it up on Ōhāriu).

              I think also that the GP want to win seats in the long term.

              http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2014/electorate-60.html

              http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2014/electorate-36.html

              • maui …
                30 May 2015 at 6:56 pm

                I can see the disadvantage of not having a Green candidate say at the Meet the Candidate nights for the public. You could still have a Green List MP running the whole campaign on the ground as if they were wanting the Electorate vote. Personally I can’t see it doing much damage to the number of Party votes, could be wrong though.

                • weka …
                  30 May 2015 at 7:08 pm

                  I take it that they know what they’re doing, especially at this stage. See Matthew’s point about Ohariu and National not standing a candidate and Dunne stil winning.

                  • lprent …
                    30 May 2015 at 8:49 pm

                    What are you talking about? National stood Brett Hudson in 2014, who got 6k+ votes out of 37k+. This is in an electorate that has a slowly decreasing turnout election on election, where most other urban electorates are slowly increasing with population demographics.

                    • weka …
                      31 May 2015 at 12:14 am

                      I think the assumption is that if the GP didn’t stand someone so that Labour could win, then National could also not stand someone and this would push Dunne over the threshhold. Nat/UF have more votes than the left.

                    • lprent []
                      1 June 2015 at 10:42 am

                      Oh… Duh… I should have read the dialogue.

                      Exactly. Everything is finally balanced in that electorate between left and right. The voters will simply adapt

                    • Stephanie Rodgers …
                      31 May 2015 at 10:22 am

                      Brett Hudson was a pretty dire candidate.

                    • lprent []
                      1 June 2015 at 10:44 am

                      He was, and during his candidacy the vote flowed to Dunne and Anderson.

              • Atiawa …
                30 May 2015 at 8:16 pm

                As a priority the Greens must surely stand candidates in those electorates requiring the greatest need for Green education. Taranaki/King Country, Waikato, Southland, Hauraki. Those places where the greatest polluters ply their trades. Knocking on farmers doors, having insightful one on ones with the roustabout and the protein gatherers.

                • Atiawa …
                  31 May 2015 at 12:23 am

                  Right?

                  • maui …
                    31 May 2015 at 12:50 am

                    I’d go along with that. Work on your weaknesses. Even better if in rural areas they could get candidates who were leading the way in say sustainable farming practices and not just a city person. Someone who really relates to those communities.

                • weka …
                  31 May 2015 at 12:29 am

                  I would guess that they chose electorates based on which places have good candidates. I would also expect them to prioritise electorates where they are more likely to pick up party votes. They did stand an good candidates in Southland and Invercargill. Don’t know about up North.

                  • Atiawa …
                    31 May 2015 at 12:52 am

                    Well if your’e not winning electorate seats, I would have thought the best candidates should be standing in electorates requiring further policy enlightenment.
                    I realise cycling around the Taranaki/King Country electorate would be too much to ask but what a great way to bring exposure to a campaign.

                    • weka …
                      31 May 2015 at 1:21 am

                      They have limited resources, so they’re going to put them where they are most likely to get the party votes. But I would guess it would depend on where the people wanting to be candidates live. If you have a good candidate in a conservative rural area, why not stand?

          • Ron 9.3.1.1.4
            30 May 2015 at 7:24 pm

            There’s the rub. I think it highly likely the Greens will snuggle up to National.
            And knowing the depth of National’s control of everything the BlueGreen National will destroy the Green Party. I hope not but by rejecting either of the other three candidates they have pretty much indicated which way the party will go.

            the Green Party wants to go to government, and If the Green Party does not want to go hand in hand with National

            • weka 9.3.1.1.4.1
              31 May 2015 at 12:15 am

              I’m not sure why you think that when the GP can’t support formation of a govt by National unless the membership agrees at an AGM. How do you propose that might happen?

        • Chooky 9.3.1.2
          30 May 2015 at 6:01 pm

          +100 Colville…

      • Atiawa 9.3.2
        30 May 2015 at 7:57 pm

        Labour can take it’s time. There is no brighter future coming to a town near you any day soon.

        • Clemgeopin 9.3.2.1
          30 May 2015 at 9:46 pm

          Not sure which party you support, but that is such an arrogant, nasty and cocky statement to make, unless you are a right wing National/ACT prick.

          • Atiawa 9.3.2.1.1
            30 May 2015 at 10:53 pm

            You think? Why would that be?
            9.3 “……we are still waiting for Labour to get its act together, and this is what happens when it takes too long”

            Of course Labour can take ITS time. There is no rock star economy. The election is in 2017, not next month, not next year, 2017.
            This governments lack of meaningful policies for our future will not require any help exposing. Leave them to losing cred’s with the electorate. Our main event is over two years away.
            This is a time for our re- building.
            A leaky home is always exposed sooner of later.

            • Clemgeopin 9.3.2.1.1.1
              30 May 2015 at 11:33 pm

              Ok, sorry, I misread your post as sarcastically putting Labour down (by saying there is no brighter future coming to Labour) as some greens and almost all NAT/ACT trolls do. Obviously, I misunderstood. Very sorry about that.

              • Atiawa …
                31 May 2015 at 12:37 am

                No worries. Yeah I understand. They all have an opinion on what Labour should or shouldn’t do but they aren’t Labourites.
                How does that work?

            • weka 9.3.2.1.1.2
              31 May 2015 at 12:49 am

              Labour can take all the time it wants. But the GP have been waiting a bloody long time and patience has run out. Ditto other lefties. That’s why there is so much criticism of Labour. We’re all dependent on Labour, I wish it wasn’t so, but it is.

              • Clemgeopin …
                31 May 2015 at 8:58 am

                Why not just join Labour then ?

                • Chooky …
                  31 May 2015 at 9:10 am

                  I am a Labour member…ha ha…in support of Cunliffe that was…but I wont be voting for them

                  ….I dont get it that some people think you should not criticise the Labour Party unless they are a member

                  ….there is a lot to criticise whether you ar a member or not a member

                • Colonial Rawshark …
                  31 May 2015 at 9:12 am

                  Do tell; what are the benefits and privileges of Labour Party membership?

                  • weka …
                    31 May 2015 at 9:22 am

                    and responsibilities 😉

                    Clem, your question is odd. It’s pretty obvious why I’m a GP member and not a Labour one.

                    • Clemgeopin …
                      31 May 2015 at 10:44 am

                      My comment was in reference to your bitterness towards Labour when you wrote, “But the GP have been waiting a bloody long time and patience has run out. Ditto other lefties. That’s why there is so much criticism of Labour. We’re all dependent on Labour”

                      You want Labour for your benefit and yet you (the Green supporters as well as the new leader in his dig at Labour at his very first speech!) keep putting boot into Labour. That is so pathetic.

                    • weka …
                      31 May 2015 at 11:23 am

                      Oh grow up Clem. I want a left wing govt. For all intents and purposes at this point in history, that’s going to be a Labour/GP govt. Of course I want Labour to perform well, but only if it means forming govt. They’ve never going to be able to do that on their own. Hence the need for all lefties for Labour to get their act together. They’re taking a very long time.

                      It’s not about my benefit. It’s about the good of the country. I was raised that that’s what you vote for. It’s in the kaupapa of the GP. Labour used to stand for that too. How about you?

                    • Tracey …
                      31 May 2015 at 11:27 am

                      Clem

                      Do you prefer FFP? Genuine question, not a snipe.

                    • Clemgeopin …
                      31 May 2015 at 11:47 am

                      @weka,
                      [1] Yes, but the way to achieve that is not by attacking or making snide remarks about Labour nor by putting boot into Labour feeling smug, like Shaw did at his speech yesterday.

                      [2] This morning in the Q and A Shaw said that when Labour and Greens jointly announced the power buying policy, the support went up for both parties. That is a myth. Wrong. Did not in fact happen in the polls! (though people did support the lowering of power prices, but did not reflect it in the opinion polls for Lab/Green vote support). I posted a comment with poll numbers to debunk that myth/false propaganda perpetrated by the Greens, but no one here even bothered to respond to that !

                      Here is the debunking of that myth:
                      http://thestandard.org.nz/in-praise-of-key/#comment-1021807

                      What is your comment about my two points here?

                      P.S : Re your comment asking me to grow up, awktully, at the end of the day, I am quite tall already, yep!

                    • Clemgeopin …
                      31 May 2015 at 12:06 pm

                      [@Tracey,
                      Clem Do you prefer FFP? Genuine question, not a snipe.] (FFP or FPP?)

                      No, I hate FPP.
                      I like MMP but hate coat tailing provision and I am not sure about the % threshold that is best. (2%, 3% or 5%? 2 or 3% may bring in heaps of little parties with too much power and may bring government to chaos and corrupt practices while 5% prevents voice for 5% of voters and deprives 5 to 7 reps from being MPs.
                      On balance, I think no coat tailing and not less than 5% threshold, but as I said, I am not too sure about the threshold aspect)

                    • weka …
                      31 May 2015 at 12:07 pm

                      1. I’ve already said I thought Shaw was unwise to say that. Stop beating a dead horse.

                      2. I’m not sure what the date was for the peak on both parties’ polling (and it might have been internal polling). I thought it was 2014, in the election period. I’ll ask around.

                    • Clemgeopin …
                      31 May 2015 at 2:03 pm

                      @weka ” I’m not sure what the date was for the peak on both parties’ polling (and it might have been internal polling). I thought it was 2014, in the election period. I’ll ask around”

                      Sure, do please ask around and get back. I am curious too as to how that false myth/spin came about.

                      The week BEFORE the announcement had the best results twice actually:

                      Roy Morgan Research[59] 1–14 April 2013
                      L=35.5 G=13.5 COMBINED=49%
                      One News Colmar Brunton[9][63] 14–18 April 2013
                      L=36.0 G=13.0 COMBINED=49%

                      After the power announcement the poll totals actually went DOWN!

                      The BEST recovery that happened was actually straight after Cunliffe’s election as leader of Labour:

                      Roy Morgan Research[86] 30 September – 13 October 2013 L=37 G= 12.5 Total= 49.5% !

                    • weka …
                      31 May 2015 at 3:31 pm

                      I’ll try tweeting during the week after the AGM. Remind me if you like.

                    • Chooky …
                      1 June 2015 at 10:24 am

                      “responsibilities”…weka re you saying I am irresponsible?…if so this is very school prefect and middle class from you…as usual…responsibility in itself is not a virtue nor does it make much sense necessarily , nor is it always intelligent eg the Nazis thought they were responsible to the Fatherland

                  • Clemgeopin …
                    31 May 2015 at 10:56 am

                    “Do tell; what are the benefits and privileges of Labour Party membership?”

                    It may stop the green complainers from being bitter and teach them to be constructive from within rather than be stone throwers from the outside while at the same time, wanting friendship and love from Labour.

                    • Tracey …
                      31 May 2015 at 11:29 am

                      IT’s like you are completely oblivious to Labour’s attitude and side-lining and, at times, denigrating, behaviour towards Green Party.

                      I wish Labour were a strong Left party. But they’re not. It’s not because I haven’t joined their party, it’s because of who is in their caucus and wider leadership and who they don’t want to stand up for. Their choice, of course, but I am not a hater or a traitor or nasty of whatever other epithets for not supporting it.

                    • weka …
                      31 May 2015 at 12:10 pm

                      +1 Tracey. And stop being a hypocrite Clem. We’ve had mutiple conversations where I’ve called you out in telling lies about the GP. If you want to be taken seriously on this matter you’ll have to change your own behaviour.

                      edit, you keep saying people put the boot in, but despite being asked to be specific you haven’t said what you mean. It’ll work better if you point to specific points and debate those rather than doing this generic ‘stop being mean to the Labour party ‘ thing. With specific points we can hash them out.

                    • Clemgeopin …
                      31 May 2015 at 12:26 pm

                      @Tracey:

                      Labour is an independent party. So is the GP. just like all other parties.

                      Each party should enunciate its best ideals and policies, convince the voters to get them elected.

                      Any possible arrangements and cooperation/coalition/MOU etc should happen AFTER the voters have given their verdict.

                      Cooking up coalition/cooperation before the election is kind of a fraud on the people or second guessing the voters as well as scaring some voters away from the forced pre-arranged marriage before getting permission from the voters for taking the vows, especially when the voters may actually want to provide different suitors who may end up getting grabbed by some other party.

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      31 May 2015 at 12:32 pm

                      Each party should enunciate its best ideals and policies, convince the voters to get them elected.

                      Any possible arrangements and cooperation/coalition/MOU etc should happen AFTER the voters have given their verdict.

                      This is exactly what I mean by Labour being stuck in the old Red Coats approach where the first rank fires, kneels and reloads; allowing the second rank to fire, kneel and reload. Great tactics for the 19th Century environment.

                    • Clemgeopin …
                      31 May 2015 at 1:26 pm

                      @weka, if you think the green supporters do not put boot into Labour or if you think that I am a hypocrite or that I tell lies or that I should really grow upwards, so be it.

                      Do you really want me to go through several pasts for several weeks and months digging up comments where the boot has been thrown at Labour for different reasons? That will be a long list:

                      I think we should leave it here.

                    • weka …
                      1 June 2015 at 1:03 pm

                      No, I want you to give 3 specific examples, with links, so we know what you are talking about. I’m not the only one that has asked.

                    • te reo putake …
                      1 June 2015 at 1:09 pm

                      Really, weka? TS is chock full of anti-labour comments, a fair few of them from LP members. What precisely do you need evidence of?

                    • weka …
                      1 June 2015 at 1:35 pm

                      I don’t need evidence TRP. I want 3 examples of the Greens putting the boot into Labour on ts, so I know which comments Clem is referring to. I could of course just assume that all comments from greenies about Labour are putting the boot in, but that would just be stupid (and inaccurate).

                      Reallly what I am trying to do is get Clem to focus on the substance of the comments, instead of bandying around useless generalisations (sometimes inaccurate ones). People (not just greens) are highly critical of Labour a lot, so I’d like to know if he just wants nothing bad said about them at all, or if he is genuinely interested in the issues that people perceive.

                    • te reo putake []
                      1 June 2015 at 1:46 pm

                      Well, to the best of my knowledge, the Greens have never put the boot into anyone on TS. But then, the Greens don’t post or comment here. Individual members or supporters might be a different matter. However, my experience of GP activists is that they are generally not into putting the boot into anyone, though they do tend to roll their eyes a lot when talking about Labour. But even so, most seem to recognise that the Greens can achieve bugger all without Labour. The real issue isn’t how the Greens and Labour can work together, it’s whether the Greens and NZF can co-exist in a coalition. Because that’s what’s needed next election.

                    • weka …
                      1 June 2015 at 2:22 pm

                      Quite (and the few people who post here who I would consider to be part of the Green Party, being active members, don’t criticise Labour in the way say I do).

                      I remain confident that the GP can work with pretty much anyone.

                  • Atiawa …
                    31 May 2015 at 11:03 am

                    If you’re after privilege and benefit join the National party.

                    I hear the queue is rather long.

                  • Chooky …
                    31 May 2015 at 7:25 pm

                    I was one of many who $5 joined to give Cunliffe support as leader after the election …but sadly the Labour caucus didn’t support him…while the membership did….and he resigned

                    …I havent yet resigned from the Labour Party because I havent got around to it ….and it amuses me to stay….and some Labour MPs do some good work…I try to support the LP emails sent to me on various issues, asking for lobbying help

    • One Anonymous Bloke 9.4
      30 May 2015 at 4:44 pm

      The new narrative from the right will be to praise him until he says something, then pay lip service to the disappointment they’ll affect in lieu of having anything to contribute.

  10. finbar 10
    30 May 2015 at 2:56 pm

    Russell to left in his make up,bring on the new center leaner,bring us back those who deserted us the last election,bring back the old bourgeois liberals.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 10.1
      30 May 2015 at 3:00 pm

      🙄

    • Stuart Munro 10.2
      30 May 2015 at 3:05 pm

      You know, I never heard anyone in the Greens complain they were too left. And Russell would be co-leader if he wanted it – he performed well, constantly showing Key up as a useless, ignorant, selfish and malicious prat. I imagine Shaw is talented – the Greens lack the kind of privilege network that imposes tossers like Brownlee & McCully on the long-suffering public.

    • Psycho Milt 10.3
      30 May 2015 at 5:35 pm

      Russell to left in his make up,bring on the new center leaner…

      Is this some kind of beatnik poetry? If it is, it sucks.

  11. weka 11
    30 May 2015 at 3:05 pm

    For people who don’t know who James Shaw is, my suggestion is ignore right ring commentary completely, take everything you see in the MSM with several grains of salt, instead look at what Shaw himself says and does. He has speeches online, plus his work in parliament. Active Greens are also good for an overview.

    Myself, I’m very happy with the decision. Shaw will focus on CC, and he steps neatly into Norman’s shoes. He wears a suit well, but he’s not soulless. Another good bridge builder for the GP and a great complement to Turei. Plus, 2 other experienced and competent male leadership MPs behind him and between the three of them they cover a lot of bases. The GP is in very good shape, we should celebrate this.

    • maui 11.1
      30 May 2015 at 3:13 pm

      Completely agree. Another bonus is that he is nowhere near as tall as Russel, so Metiria won’t have to stand on a bucket for photographs 😛

    • Alethios 11.2
      30 May 2015 at 3:45 pm

      Yep, nice one Weka.

    • Bill 11.3
      30 May 2015 at 10:06 pm

      S’cuse my…but why would a ‘bridgebuilder’ be good thing (assuming those bridges are between liberal parliamentary parties), when the real need is to cut loose and cut free…

      • weka 11.3.1
        31 May 2015 at 12:47 am

        I meant bridgebuilding between various sections of society (hadn’t thought about with other parties, but that might be true too).

        The GP don’t need to cut loose and cut free, although I accept that you might need them to (btw, you might be able to convince me, I just still haven’t seen the how yet).

    • Tracey 11.4
      31 May 2015 at 11:31 am

      YUP, and when you do look at the framing of him by the Right, ask your selves WHY.

  12. Disraeli Gladstone 12
    30 May 2015 at 3:07 pm

    I have enormous respect for Hague, but this is definitely the right choice. Honestly, I’d love to see a co-leader team of Shaw and Genter with a backbone MP team of Turei on Child Poverty, Norman on the economy, and Hague on health. But if Turei still thinks she’s got something to give as leader, more power to her.

    • Chooky 12.1
      30 May 2015 at 3:25 pm

      Metiria Turei, a lawyer, is superb as woman co-leader…and she has the added bonus of being a New Zealand Maori …the tangata whenua…the Greens have a real partnership of co-leaders

      (Tangata whenua (Māori pronunciation: [ˈtaŋata ˈfɛnʉ.a]) is a Māori term of the indigenous peoples of New Zealand and literally means “people of the land”, from tangata, ‘people’ and whenua land.)

      • Disraeli Gladstone 12.1.1
        30 May 2015 at 4:36 pm

        I don’t doubt Turei’s intelligence or ability, like I said, if she doesn’t think it’s time for her to resign as leader, I don’t think she’s anywhere near being rolled.

        I just think Genter and Shaw has the capacity to pull voters the Greens normally wouldn’t, while Turei behind the scene could make sure the party doesn’t give up its left-wing flax roots. It’s a political perception issue.

        I’m also aware that this puts me in agreement with Bomber which makes me feel seriously ill, but hey, the guy has to be right every now and then.

        • Matthew Whitehead 12.1.1.1
          30 May 2015 at 5:43 pm

          Just a small point… Green leaderships can’t be “rolled.” It’s just a matter of whether anyone chooses to stand against her before she wants to resign.

          • weka 12.1.1.1.1
            30 May 2015 at 5:55 pm

            +1 although presumably the Exec can remove a co-leader in extreme circumstances if they have to.

        • Chooky 12.1.1.2
          31 May 2015 at 9:23 am

          @DG I dont think you are in agreement with Bomber at all…your central argument is that Turei should go…( resign or be rolled, but the Greens dont do this)..Bomber is very happy with Turei as the co-leader…so where is your agreement?…certainly not with your central argument

          …where is your link?

          …imo this is tricky disinformation…designed to undermine Turei…and you bring Bomber in on it as if he is in agreement

          … obviously ( Mr Cambridge man) you think Genter (who is an American) should replace Turei….I wonder why?…especially as Turei does such a fantastic job and tried to push though Hone Harawira’s meals in schools?

          …..Metiria Turei has flaxroots support from Maori , Mana/Int and the Greens !

          • Disraeli Gladstone 12.1.1.2.1
            31 May 2015 at 9:45 am

            Christ, Chooky, can you please take the time to actually read my posts. All I ask for is a little reading comprehension.

            I do think Genter would be the better leader. HOWEVER, I explicitly said in my post that Turei should be given as much time in the job as she thinks she can make use of. How on earth did you make this into me thinking she should be rolled?

            And you know what, you think calling Mr Cambridge Man is some sort of insult? It’s really not. I wasn’t a silver spoon toff. My single mother worked hard to make sure I had a good childhood. I worked hard to get into a good university. We both worked hard to make sure I could afford to live. You’re wearing your prejudice on your sleeve there.

            • Chooky 12.1.1.2.1.1
              31 May 2015 at 11:01 am

              well perhaps I have misunderstood you…but you have some answering to do …..answer me these questions

              1.) why are you always undermining Metiria Turei as co-leader of the Greens?

              2.) why would American Genter be a better co-leader of the Greens than Metiria Turei?…what are your reasons?

              …if you cannot answer these questions it looks like you are making trouble and trying to undermine the Greens

              **************
              btw…Metiria Turei’s questions to John Key in Parliament about kids going to school without lunch received some great coverage on Campbell Live.

              http://www.3news.co.nz/tvshows/campbelllive/key-extremely-few-kiwi-kids-without-lunch-2014120320#axzz3bfHLl7hD

              http://www.feedthekids.org.nz/tags/food_in_schools

              http://www.maoritelevision.com/news/regional/feed-kids-bill-fails-gain-government-support

              (but of course jonkey nact made sure her Bill didnt get through)

              …because Metiria Turei is Maori and a socialist with links to Mana/Int jonkey nact regards her as prime threat…therefore she is VERY effective

              ….wouldnt it be great if the Greens forged a serious coalition with Mana/Int …as well as Labour and NZF

              ( this would be jonkey nacts worst nightmare)

              • Disraeli Gladstone …
                31 May 2015 at 3:55 pm

                1) “Always” undermined her as leader? What? I even went back and searched my posts for when I mentioned Turei and in the last year or two, I’ve said she would make a good Deputy Prime Minister and that she and Norman were “on their game” which was good.

                How about instead of literally making up shit, you show me where I have “always” undermined her.

                2) Politics. Politics isn’t just about the best ideas. I wish it was; I’m sure we all do. But politics is spin and appearance as well. Turei is amazingly passionate and great. Unfortunately, the Nationals have painted her as an outspoken fringe politician.

                Whereas a team of Shaw and Genter would look slick as hell. They’d look our moderate, competent Greens. The outspoken passion of the Greens cause (led by the wider MP team of Turei and co) can keep the current vote enthused. The slick leader package can push further into the middle class, professional votes.

                In terms of coalition building, Labour has been shit at winning those votes since Clark. Let the Greens have a shot.

                NOW, READ THIS BIT CAREFULLY.

                I’m aware of the dangers of voting for the “slick” leader. That’s how we ended up with Tony Blair. But that’s why you keep a strong left-wing backbone behind Shaw and Genter (Turei, Hague, Norman, Marama Davidson asap) to make sure that the visuals don’t start overpowering the appearance.

                Also, it goes without saying, Shaw and Genter are no Tony Blair. They do believe in the cause.

                • Chooky …
                  31 May 2015 at 7:29 pm

                  This says it all….”Turei is amazingly passionate and great. Unfortunately, the Nationals have painted her as an outspoken fringe politician. Whereas a team of Shaw and Genter would look slick as hell.”

                  Summary: Nactional dont like her so you dont and Genter is “slicker”….not much substance there i am afraid

                  Grade :…. an ‘F’ as an answer …make it a ‘;F+’ for trying

                  • Disraeli Gladstone …
                    31 May 2015 at 9:06 pm

                    Fuck, I honestly give up. I have no idea how you’ve made it so far in life without basic reading comprehension.

      • Rosemary McDonald 12.1.2
        30 May 2015 at 5:19 pm

        I was wholeheartedly agreeing when….

        http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/68990090/green-party-names-james-shaw-as-new-coleader

        “Earlier Turei said she felt like “The Bachelorette” as she waited for the outcome.

        “It’s been a while since I’ve had four men chasing after me. Who will get the rose?””

        Really?

        • Psycho Milt 12.1.2.1
          30 May 2015 at 5:41 pm

          It’s called “humour” – maybe you’ve heard of it?

          • Rosemary McDonald 12.1.2.1.1
            30 May 2015 at 6:07 pm

            Happy for you PM, that you feel like laughing.

            NZ is going down the toilet at the rate of knots, how many billions of Hiroshima bombs of heat have we accumulated in the past how long? How many more tons of pollutants have gone into our waterways…the waterways we can still call ours?
            How many of our young people have given up on home ownership, been crippled with student loans, are choosing never to have their own children?

            The young people who are still here in NZ.

            FFS, there is NOTHING to laugh about right now.

            What I would have preferred to hear was; ” I am sure whoever is chosen as co-leader will be as committed to seriously addressing the horrendous environmental issues NZ is facing as I am. Together, and with the rest of the Green Party, we will strive to ensure the miserable sons of bitches who occupy the government benches are gone in 2017. We will work with the Labour Party to present a formidable and credible opposition, a real alternative to National. Our first order of business will be to ensure that New Zealanders are fully informed about the TPPA, and be a driving force behind real activism to get it binned.

            Instead we get inane references to what I am told is the most hideously demeaning reality telly show.

            What was that? Tell me please she doesn’t actually watch that crap?

            Or was it a clumsy attempt to relate to the ‘great unwashed’?

            Or was it a bit of light hearted horseplay?

            • weka 12.1.2.1.1.1
              30 May 2015 at 6:35 pm

              I’d guess the latter, but also, she’s not elitist.

            • Lanthanide 12.1.2.1.1.2
              30 May 2015 at 6:37 pm

              Get over yourself.

              • Rosemary McDonald …
                30 May 2015 at 6:51 pm

                Gee…really constructive.

                Take a bit of time out and read through the past say, month’s posts and comments here on TS.

                The same old arguments. The same old pontificating. The same old shit slinging if someone says something, anything, different.

                I’m not sure if it is clear yet that shit has got seriously real.

                We kinda getting to the point of no return.

                We have (theoretically) a democracy. Which means in order to turn things around, we have to get rid of the incumbents. By voting them out. (Although…)

                Which means there HAS to be solid, credible opposition. A party, or an affiliation of parties that the voters have confidence in.

                Intelligent, committed, serious people.

                And, judging by the last three elections…

                • weka …
                  30 May 2015 at 6:59 pm

                  Turei is a serious, committed, experienced and very competent politician. I think people are objecting to you making out she isn’t because of a lighthearted joke she made in a situation where it was appropriate. Did you watch the video?

                  • Chooky …
                    31 May 2015 at 9:36 am

                    +100 weka…”Turei is a serious, committed, experienced and very competent politician”

                    ….anyone who doesnt know this has their head in the sand…..the Greens certainly know it!

                    …. and anyone who is trying to undermine Turei from outside the Greens , considers her to be a real threat to jonkey nact

                • Lanthanide …
                  30 May 2015 at 7:45 pm

                  It’s funny, I made a point about Jacinda Ardern’s release using some slightly too strident language and that she should moderate it, and particularly beef it up to show the opposition are actually doing lots of things and making a difference; not just being a lone voice screaming into the wind.

                  You replied saying that Jacinda’s wording was fine and it’s important to get people engaged with politicians.

                  Here we have Turei making a joke that a lot of people could relate to (you know, popular culture, it’s called “popular” for a reason) and you’re jumping up and down as if she’s somehow dumbing down politics. All she’s trying to do is 1. fill the void (she has to say something) and 2. make a funny joke and 3. appear likeable to her audience. This wasn’t a campaign statement piece or a call to action for voters, and nor does every utterance from a politician have to be in that mode of formalism. John Key has practically made it an art form.

                  • Rosemary McDonald …
                    30 May 2015 at 8:46 pm

                    “(you know, popular culture, it’s called “popular” for a reason)”

                    “All she’s trying to do is 1. fill the void (she has to say something)”

                    Empty words to fill an empty space.

                    ” 2. make a funny joke ”

                    Ha, ha, ha.

                    3.” appear likeable to her audience. ”

                    Audience? She is an elected member of parliament, not an actor, a comedian.

                    As you quite correctly point out, Our Leader has made being a jokesy bloke an art form….

                    We need much better from what is supposed to be the opposition.

                    PS. No, I didn’t say Jacinda’s wording was fine…I said it didn’t matter that much…it was the intent that mattered. Trying to do better by foster children is a worthwhile and important issue.

                    And, for the record, I thought Turei’s post budget speech was brilliant, and a perfect foil for Little’s fire.

                    • Sacha …
                      30 May 2015 at 9:34 pm

                      She was speaking foremost to the people in the room – party activists/insiders. The tone seemed well-received and in keeping with how others spoke (including the returning officer) during the later live-stream of the announcement.

                      I’d be more concerned about the mischief-making from the right trying to undermine her new co-leader

            • Tracey 12.1.2.1.1.3
              31 May 2015 at 11:35 am

              Our leaders and advocates still have to connect with those who need the help they are proposing in their serious moments. Humour, used well, connects people in a positive way (unlike our PM who uses it to reinforce some negative behaviours, primarily of men, and make a whole bunch of them comfortable with their jaundiced and damaging view of the society – eg pony tail, eg joke about murdering paedophile to Chilean PM, “not sorry to be a man when he knew the context was in relation to NZ’s appalling record of violence toward women and children)

    • weka 12.2
      30 May 2015 at 3:25 pm

      One of the great things about having coleaders is that you have someone new coming in while still giving someone very experienced. Thus is why the GP can choose a leader who’s only been an MP for a short time. It wouldn’t make sense to change both leaders at the same time.

      I agree Genter is very good. The party oozes talent.

      • Disraeli Gladstone 12.2.1
        30 May 2015 at 4:37 pm

        When you look at the various parties actual MPs, the Greens are so far ahead in terms of talent (minus Steffan Browning) it’s insane.

        • Chooky 12.2.1.1
          30 May 2015 at 6:05 pm

          @DG…are you a friend of Jonkey then.?..he also ridicules Steffan Browning…imo this is a recommendation for Steffan Browning, who is an expert on soil science and organic farming

          • Lanthanide 12.2.1.1.1
            30 May 2015 at 7:46 pm

            Then he should shut up when it comes to discredited bunk like homoeopathy.

            • Colonial Rawshark 12.2.1.1.1.1
              30 May 2015 at 7:51 pm

              That “discredited bunk” will last far longer than all the thousands of medical treatments which have been discarded over the last 50 years.

          • Disraeli Gladstone 12.2.1.1.2
            31 May 2015 at 8:44 am

            I compliment the entire Greens MP team except from one person and I’m friends with John Key?

            Wow. This is why I’ve stepped away from politics lately. It’s too much of a fucking religion. If you don’t believe everything said from your side, you’re a heretic.

            I suppose a lot of left-wing bloggers like Danyl and Giovanni Tiso are friends of John Key because they’ve mocked Browning. Also Russell Norman, since he’s called him out as well.

            Don’t be so precious. You don’t need to slavishly follow everything your party says. Basically, if one political parties agree with you more than 50% of the time, you’re lucky.

        • Tracey 12.2.1.2
          31 May 2015 at 11:38 am

          I agree @ the talent and integrity in the Green caucus. Something that I know they try to communicate. The green Party does most of its connecting through technology and inperson because they have only really had increased MSM sine the right and the press decided Norman was an economically literate person. All hail the importance of and we let you speak

      • Karen 12.2.2
        30 May 2015 at 5:00 pm

        Genter is very good on transport but she was pushing the “we can work with National” line the week before the last election. I much prefer Metiria.

        • Matthew Whitehead 12.2.2.1
          30 May 2015 at 5:48 pm

          How so pushing that line?

          Her recent speeches in Parliament have all been saying “we can’t work with National as National makes itself hostile to the environment and therefore to ordinary people.” Not sure how that’s pushing a green-right coalition.

        • Sacha 12.2.2.2
          30 May 2015 at 10:09 pm

          she was? I thought that was only Russel

      • dukeofurl 12.2.3
        30 May 2015 at 5:06 pm

        Isnt it funny, when you the primary criteria for one leader is to have a vagina, and another leader to have a penis, the leader with the penis always, always ends up doing the economic stuff.

        Its SO Seven Sharp!

  13. MrSmith 13
    30 May 2015 at 3:17 pm

    Great news and long may the Greens continue to show how a party can make a difference from the opposition benches with integrity.

  14. Colonial Viper 14
    30 May 2015 at 3:20 pm

    i think Standardistas are going to be disappointed.

    • Colonial Viper 14.1
      30 May 2015 at 3:24 pm

      can anyone spell Molotov-Ribbentrop.

      • weka 14.1.1
        30 May 2015 at 3:26 pm

        🙄

        Bah humbug ;-p

      • Chooky 14.1.2
        30 May 2015 at 3:32 pm

        CV…what are you trying to say..or trying not to say?

        • DS 14.1.2.1
          31 May 2015 at 4:04 pm

          Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact = Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Deal.

          CV’s referring to a National-Green deal.

          (I think such a deal is unlikely within the next twenty or so years. The eventual potential is there though: the Green voter base is urban, middle-to-upper class, well-educated, and socially liberal. It’s basically ACT’s with a conscience).

          • weka 14.1.2.1.1
            31 May 2015 at 4:09 pm

            If that is indeed what he meant, then he was shit stirring, because he knows perfectly well that the GP have no intention of forming govt with National.

      • Brendon Harre 14.1.3
        30 May 2015 at 4:32 pm

        I can spell Molotov cocktail. It worked for my wife’s people.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov_cocktail#Finland

        Sometimes the people win……

        • David 14.1.3.1
          30 May 2015 at 6:25 pm

          The Finns lost…

          • Brendon Harre 14.1.3.1.1
            30 May 2015 at 7:45 pm

            Finland kept it’s independence, despite fighting both the Soviets and the Germans at different stages in the war.

            Sure Finland lost some territory. But it didn’t lose its people and those Finns who lost land were gifted land by the state. Finland also did not persecute jews while aligned with Hitler.

            Estonia and the other Baltic states were all engulfed by the Soviet machine. They definitely lost. At worst you could say the Soviets won, Germany lost and Finland drew the war.

            • Colonial Rawshark 14.1.3.1.1.1
              30 May 2015 at 7:54 pm

              Exactly – sometimes “victory” must be defined in ones own terms.

            • Tracey 14.1.3.1.1.2
              31 May 2015 at 11:40 am

              and today and long before 1989 they were independent of Russia.

  15. Mike the Savage One 15
    30 May 2015 at 3:21 pm

    Hmmm, maybe this a good choice to gain some votes from environmentally concerned middle class swing voters, some of whom may in the past have voted National. But I am only rather moderately impressed with what I have read and heard about, and from James Shaw so far.

    In any case, I congratulate him and the Greens for choosing him as new Co-leader.

    Time will tell, what this means for the future Green Party direction, which is though not determined by the leaders alone, but rather by the party members and supporters.

    I guess National would have preferred another Greens leader (less appealing to their potential voters).

  16. David Bachman 16
    30 May 2015 at 3:32 pm

    I feel many of those that voted National but could vote Green view child poverty as primarily a parental responsibility but are really ticked off that we…”Cant swim there, can’t wade there, can’t eat the eel from any of these waterways.”

    Appealing to this group would come at the price of diluting the heartfelt values of many current supporters.

    Onya Jimmy!

  17. yabby 17
    30 May 2015 at 3:44 pm

    Mr Shaw will win Wellington Central and he is the embodiment of the growing demographic – that of the environmentally and socially aware, the aspirational and the professional left wing voter. Not good for Labour’s share of that demographic’s vote IMO, but that said Shaw is the one to forge a “we’re sensible chaps really” working relationship with Labour.

    • Nick K 17.1
      30 May 2015 at 4:01 pm

      I can’t see Labour’s deputy leader and PM aspirant, Grant Robertson, giving up Wellington Central easily. And Shaw took a dig at Labour in his acceptance speech.

      Doh!

      • Matthew Whitehead 17.1.1
        30 May 2015 at 5:56 pm

        Grant has already lost Wellington Central in terms of the Party vote, which is all the Greens are going for at this stage. The Greens already have a plurality in Wellington central, and strong support in many surrounding areas.

    • Monty 17.2
      30 May 2015 at 4:54 pm

      Grant has a very firm hold on Wellington and there will be no opportunity for shaw to win. There may be a whole lot of relatively well off urban liberals in Wellington, but don’t forget the Nats poll strongest in the party vote.

      I think Shaw will be good for the greens, but the party is still extreme left in the eyes of middle class NZ, and the Middle classes are very wary of Turei. Votes may come from labour to the greens, but national support will remain circa 50%

      • weka 17.2.1
        30 May 2015 at 5:20 pm

        most of my middle class NZ family votes Green and has done for some time.

        • Monty 17.2.1.1
          30 May 2015 at 5:37 pm

          Im definitely middle class as are most of my friends. Vast majority are national supporters. A couple of them are the classic urban liberal types who vote green. All the nat voters are so very wary of the greens being near the levers of power for the simple reason the economic policy platform of the greens is based on the Marxist utopia that is impossible and unsustainable

          • weka 17.2.1.1.1
            30 May 2015 at 5:42 pm

            yeah and most people I know vote on the left or don’t vote. Which tells us what kinds of circles we both move in.

            I’m willing to bet that the vast majority of your aquaintances haven’t read GP economic policy (and yourself).

          • Psycho Milt 17.2.1.1.2
            30 May 2015 at 5:46 pm

            Classic “the people I hang out with tend to like the same things I do” logic fail. The ‘fail’ part is because “people I hang out with” is never a random sample.

          • maui 17.2.1.1.3
            30 May 2015 at 5:53 pm

            It sounds like your mates are just scared of not getting their tax cuts and being taxed slightly more – purely selfish reasons. They’re probably not too interested in the inbalances throughout our economy and society either.

          • Colonial Rawshark 17.2.1.1.4
            30 May 2015 at 5:55 pm

            wary of the greens being near the levers of power for the simple reason the economic policy platform of the greens is based on the Marxist utopia that is impossible and unsustainable

            1) The Green Party economic philosophy is nowhere near “Marxist” FFS (do you even know what you are talking about)

            2) The “impossible” “unsustainable” economy is the one we have now, and which is currently running our civilisation into utter chaos and degradation.

            • Matthew Whitehead 17.2.1.1.4.1
              30 May 2015 at 6:02 pm

              FYI, Monty may be characterising the views of said National party supporters, it was a bit unclear.

              Agree with you totally on both fronts though. The closest the Greens get to marxism from a philosophical platform is acknowledging that when the world’s resources are limited in comparison to the population, the fairest way to distribute them is equally. And that’s not exactly a radical notion.

            • Chooky 17.2.1.1.4.2
              30 May 2015 at 8:28 pm

              +100 CR…

            • Tracey 17.2.1.1.4.3
              31 May 2015 at 11:46 am

              “is nowhere near “Marxist” FFS (do you even know what you are talking about)”

              Which is why I tried to drag from PR and infused on Friday what they meant when they used the phrase “greene conomy”. They couldn’t, but could dismiss it as “bullshit” and “codswollop”

              National has cleverly mastered this. Making folks accept like those dogs nodding on the dashboard of cars BUT not actually knowing the basis in fact for their agreement.

          • mickysavage 17.2.1.1.5
            30 May 2015 at 5:59 pm

            You don’t know what Marxism is do you Monty.

            • sabine 17.2.1.1.5.1
              30 May 2015 at 6:38 pm

              Marxism is scary, really and then there was Rosa Luxemburg, oMG what a harpy, and what about this guy called Friedrich, Kaethe Kollwitz and Mother Jones. So scary all these people that had ideas and wrote them down.

          • KJT 17.2.1.1.6
            30 May 2015 at 9:51 pm

            Greens are too like Holyoak, in other words. Following the socialist mixed economy, economic platform that marks the worlds most successful countries, measured by their citizens wellbeing..

            Most Green voters, I know, are very well educated tradespeople and professionals, well aware that constant growth, the current economic dogma, is impossible in a finite world.

            If you think that the Greens economic policy is Marxist then you haven’t read Marx, Green policies, or both.

          • Tracey 17.2.1.1.7
            31 May 2015 at 11:44 am

            as opposed to this government that has smoked and mirrored its way through economic management and everyone has gone “wow they are so competent”

      • ankerawshark 17.2.2
        30 May 2015 at 8:18 pm

        I saw both Grant and James speak at a candidates meeting in Central Wellington just before the last election.

        I wasn’t aware of who the Green candidate was, so when I saw him sitting on the stage, before they were introduced, I thought he must be the Act candidate as he was so slickly dressed and clean shaven. Not a criticism as such though. Could work to his advantage.

        There was no contest when it came to who was the better speaker. Grant hand’s down. But James was new and has likely improved. I wish him well

    • b waghorn 17.3
      30 May 2015 at 5:23 pm

      The sensible thing to do is to stand him in ohariu

      • weka 17.3.1
        30 May 2015 at 5:28 pm

        Or for Labour and the GP to cooperate across both electorates. I won’t be holding my breath though.

        • b waghorn 17.3.1.1
          30 May 2015 at 5:41 pm

          It will be interesting to watch if we are going to get a game of brinkmanship detween Little and Shaw or if they will just both put there heads down and work on there own parties. It would all be so much easier without the Winston factor!

      • maui 17.3.2
        30 May 2015 at 5:38 pm

        Na, maybe somewhere else. They should not run a Green candidate in Ohariu. Dunne would have lost each of the last 3 elections there, with Green electorate votes going to Labour. Bloody stupid tactics from the left…

        • b waghorn 17.3.2.1
          30 May 2015 at 5:48 pm

          Of course for my cunning plan 🙂 to work labour would need to come to an agreement . I personally don’t think they’ve(labour) got the bottle to pick a partner and stand strong ,they’l hedge there bets and court Winston to.

          • marty mars 17.3.2.1.1
            30 May 2015 at 7:50 pm

            labour have shown they can come to an agreement that isn’t an agreement except it really is, just without the ‘agreement’ bit – just a bit of nudge nudge wink wink – seemed to work at least twice up north

            • Colonial Rawshark 17.3.2.1.1.1
              30 May 2015 at 7:57 pm

              nb in the Northland by-election, Labour only came to its senses once polling showed that they were going to come in third.

              • Chooky …
                30 May 2015 at 8:30 pm

                +100 CR…i think you should jump ship

              • lprent …
                30 May 2015 at 8:39 pm

                *sigh*. That is just damn silly myth making.

                The seat has always recognized as being damn near unwinnable by Labour for the last 80 years or so. The issue was the shrill crying of near-sighted political fools who wanted Labour to destroy what campaigning organisation they had in the north to pick up party votes in the general election of 2017.

                What Labour did was exactly what they always do. They ran a candidate, exercised their local organisation, and respected the voters enough to let the voters make the choice from the selection. Which they did.

                This idea of being a jerk trying to force voters to vote a particular way by removing their choices ignores the most basic fact about voters. They don’t like know-it all political theorists with inadequate trying to force them in how to vote. They expect to be convinced. Which is why they routinely, in their thousands, ignore people trying to force them to vote a particular way (Epsom comes to mind).

                National and Labour stand candidates in damn near every seat they can get candidates for, including by-elections, and so do most of the other larger parties where they can. The only systematic exception I know of is that National usually can’t field candidates in Maori electorates. If those major parties do not, then they have found that the turnouts of their types of voters drops, and they lose votes in later elections to people staying away from the polls. It rarely benefits other smaller parties.

                The best way to get people to vote strategically is to offer the choice, and then make sure the strategic choice is known to voters. Then let them make up their own mind as activists go and campaign. You will still get thousands ignoring all ‘advice’. But at least you won’t have people simply deciding to not vote or invalidating their vote or voting for the other side just to show what they think about it. This is obvious to anyone who spends lots of time doing broad canvassing.

                It is also easy enough to see if some damn silly political fools went back and looked at the political records of the last century. Reading real data is how you test theories. It is a pity that it doesn’t get done enough around political amateurs on the net.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  1 June 2015 at 11:07 am

                  Is there a way to dilute the political records over and over again while shaking the mixture?

              • Tracey …
                31 May 2015 at 11:49 am

                Labour winning Northland?!? Never. BUT having a voice to work on part y votes for Labour… I thought their moves made sense in terms of Willow-Prime getting more profile and showing Labour supporters there is a choice.

                LP, imo, has been the slowest party to cotton on to how the party vote really works.j

          • Tracey 17.3.2.1.2
            31 May 2015 at 11:47 am

            Clem has been expressing views recently and it appears that he thinks the Greens should just roll over to whatever LP wants. “for the good of the left”.

        • Matthew Whitehead 17.3.2.2
          30 May 2015 at 6:05 pm

          I’d be wary of saying that, as likewise, if National didn’t run a candidate against Dunne, he would also be the clear winner. People will vote how they want to vote, and keep in mind stitching up electorates like that for one candidate to win is viewed very negatively by some voters.

          (Also worth keeping in mind is that a lot of the people who vote for Green candidates in Ohariu would actually never vote for a Labour candidate, even for tactical reasons. Yes, they exist.)

          • weka 17.3.2.2.1
            30 May 2015 at 6:47 pm

            They didn’t stand anyone in TTT and it didn’t cause any controversy.

            • lprent 17.3.2.2.1.1
              30 May 2015 at 8:51 pm

              It was a by-election and the Greens had other things to work on. Northland is one of the hardest and most costly electorates in the country to work in

              We won’t know if it hurt them until we see what it does to their votes up there in 2017 and 2020.

              • weka …
                31 May 2015 at 12:33 am

                I was meaning that if they quietly chose to not stand anyone in Ōhāriu, would there be a fuss?

                • Matthew Whitehead …
                  31 May 2015 at 3:53 am

                  If Labour win, it could cause a backlash, yes. And it could also cause National to not stand a candidate and full-throatedly stand behind Dunne.

                  What I’m saying is that there are factors here that are more complicated than just subtracting 5% from the Greens’ electorate vote and adding it to Labour’s. If the Labour candidate wants those votes they’ll have to convince people they deserve them.

              • felix …
                31 May 2015 at 4:09 am

                TTT is not Northland Lynn. And it wasn’t a by-election, it was a general election.

  18. Facetious 18
    30 May 2015 at 4:08 pm

    Let us hope the Gren Party shows a lighter hue of red and more green instead.

    • Matthew Whitehead 18.1
      30 May 2015 at 6:11 pm

      What does that even mean?

      All the left-wing policies the Green party have come directly from their four policy pillars, none of which is a departure from environmental values.

      Broadly speaking, these are:

      Ecological wisdom
      Social justice
      Grassroots democracy
      Nonviolence

      Social justice is, as I’ve aluded to in other comments on this thread, an outgrowth from the realisation that in a resource-limited world, fair distribution of resources is important. Non-violence and grassroots democracy are pretty non-controversial.

      That said, the Green Party has actually been focusing on Social Justice a lot LESS since Sue Bradford departed, which I suppose is the “reddest” of its values.

      So what sense is your comment supposed to mean anything in?

  19. stigie 19
    30 May 2015 at 4:30 pm

    “CV…what are you trying to say..or trying not to say”?

    I think what CV is trying to say is that Shaw will take votes off Labour and i would have to agree. He has some business sense so might take a few from National as well.

  20. Jay 20
    30 May 2015 at 4:35 pm

    The Greens must consider working with National and make that clear over the next two years. And that’s about the only way I can see them them winning any votes off of National.

    If they won’t they risk another three years, and possibly the foreseeable future, in opposition.

    I think a NZ first/National coalition is likely if National don’t get over the line next election. They might well prefer a coalition with the Greens to one with Nz First though.

    Principles are fine things to have but after all, what use is a quarter of a century in opposition?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 20.1
      30 May 2015 at 4:38 pm

      Which country have you been living in? In New Zealand, the Greens have had several policy initiatives with National.

      Principles are fine things to have, and ignorance is a fail.

      • Clemgeopin 20.1.1
        30 May 2015 at 10:57 pm

        “Greens have had several policy initiatives with National”

        * Cycle way:
        The Greens take credit for this, but I thought it came from the economic summit that National organised with a diverge group of people. Remember that summit? I don’t think that it was made as a policy concession to the Greens. Correct me if I am wrong.

        * Poverty :
        Metiria claimed on the Nation today that the budget allocation for poverty was due to the ‘Greens’ push for it.
        I am not sure her taking full credit for it is all that correct. I think a lot of real credit should actually go to Hone (Mana) and Campbell Live for their relentless & powerful advocacy for a long time as well as the $60 per week initiative per child and other poverty measures that were put forward as policy by Labour, forcing National to respond. Again, Correct me if I am wrong.

    • Monty 20.2
      30 May 2015 at 5:05 pm

      There is no way the membership of either the greens ( extreme left) could ever allow the party to work with the Nats. Turei would be a masive stumbling block. But reality is that labour don’t want to work with the greens either. Quite simply the greens and too ideological and unrealistic to work with. They was why Clark avoided them in 2005 and swallowed a very large dead rat to go with Winston. And how did that work out?

      • sabine 20.2.1
        30 May 2015 at 5:17 pm

        I know quite a few labour supporters that would love to work with the Greens.
        And i know a few Green supporters that have no issues working with labour.

        so frankly, if the Greens and Labour would kindly get their act together it would be much appreciated by those that don’t get ministerial salaries and benefits for life.

        and the other poopoo purists, can frankly go to a really cold place and stay there.

        • Karen 20.2.1.1
          30 May 2015 at 5:27 pm

          + 1 Sabine

        • mickysavage 20.2.1.2
          30 May 2015 at 6:00 pm

          I for one would think that a Labour – Green coalition presented the ideal result for a NZ election.

          • Sacha 20.2.1.2.1
            30 May 2015 at 9:52 pm

            Please those of you with influence in Labour, work to make that happen now. Nobody can afford another few years of these dangerous clowns.

      • Macro 20.2.2
        30 May 2015 at 5:32 pm

        You obviously have no idea Monty… The Green’s have already a mou with National over Insulation. The S59 amendment became a non party vote and succeeded (with Key voting for it). Green’s will work on issues across the house. The Green’s pick up the Bill left by Hone, and promoted that – only for National to vote it down to their shame – they obviously feel its far better to fly a few sheep to someplace where they will die of heat exhaustion, or be slaughtered in an horrific manner than to feed the children of NZ . As pointed out by OAB above. It’s not rocket science, it’s simply working to achieve the things your believe in.

      • Matthew Whitehead 20.2.3
        30 May 2015 at 6:17 pm

        Turei is not a stumbling block, the leaders literally do not have any power to make coalition agreements, or to veto them. All they have is influence within the party in this regard, and the delegated power to negotiate on behalf of the members.

        The delegates at the AGM have to agree to any coalition arrangement proposed by the leaders or by caucus, and they are instructed on how to consider their vote by the members they stand for. It is the delegates who are (currently) opposed to any arrangement beyond the MoUs on agreeable policy areas like insulation.

        If National moves in a more rational direction, and offered more aggressive policy on climate change than Labour, the Greens might then have a difficult decision to make as to whether the social justice losses of supporting National could be justified in the environmental gains. But that’s not even in question yet. National is explicitly hostile to most environmental concerns in terms of the policies it sets and executive actions it takes. Until they realise that business depends on the environment to make money and that therefore conserving a human-friendly environment is a core economic value, the Greens won’t even have to consider supporting them in government.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 20.2.4
        31 May 2015 at 9:56 am

        Monty, drop the daft notion that you have the first idea what Labour supporters think, any more than you have a grip on actual Green party policies.

        It’s embarrassing, this incontinence. What’s the matter, can’t you articulate a cogent argument in support of your own position or something?

        Feeble. We need better wingnuts.

    • weka 20.3
      30 May 2015 at 5:26 pm

      “The Greens must consider working with National and make that clear over the next two years.”

      The Greens have already considered working with National, several times. They will work with any party on policy, including National. So wherever National share policy with the GP and is willing to work with the GP, the GP will work with them. What the GP won’t do is sell out its principles for votes or for a chance at being in govt. The GP want change not power.

      If you listen to Turei today, she is talking about the influence of the GP on NZ, esp in the context of the last 25 years. Some people like to say the GP have failed because they’ve never been in government, but if the objective is change rather than power then the GP have been very successful. I think most people outside the party fail to grasp this.

      • Psycho Milt 20.3.1
        30 May 2015 at 5:48 pm

        The GP want change not power.

        I think this is the bit the right-wing commenters have trouble with when it comes to the Greens.

        • weka 20.3.1.1
          30 May 2015 at 5:52 pm

          And too many lefties too.

          • Colonial Rawshark 20.3.1.1.1
            30 May 2015 at 5:57 pm

            but if the objective is change rather than power then the GP have been very successful. I think most people outside the party fail to grasp this.

            There’s been a some wins here and there, the creation of a political platform amongst them, but describing the impact of the Greens as “very successful” seems a tad overblown.

            • weka 20.3.1.1.1.1
              30 May 2015 at 6:05 pm

              I suppose I place a lot more emphasis on the value of having people in parliament talk about the environment (as opposed to just people outside) than you do. We take so much for granted now, but if you look at where NZ was at in the 80s in terms of environmental politics compared to now you can see a big change (or at least I can). Along with building a political platform goes having the issues taken seriously. If the GP hadn’t been there, those conversations wouldn’t have happened and we’d be much further behind.

              Plus, Rod Donald and MMP.

            • Matthew Whitehead 20.3.1.1.1.2
              30 May 2015 at 6:20 pm

              It’s not. The Greens have been one of the most successful parties in changing the debate on core issues, and moving policy in their direction from outside of government. I can cite examples if you really want, but the Green party has consistently got a lot done.

              That doesn’t mean they have managed to set core pollicy directions on anything of course, but their targetted policy wins would be the envy of any of the parties on the cross-benches.

            • KJT 20.3.1.1.1.3
              30 May 2015 at 9:57 pm

              You weren’t around at the starting point.

              The Greens have shifted the dialogue hugely by sticking to their core principles..

            • Colonial Rawshark 20.3.1.1.1.4
              31 May 2015 at 9:22 am

              You guys seem confident that the Greens have leveraged huge and very successful changes in the political discourse within NZ. I would term it more as useful and productive influence in parts of the discussion. But I guess its a matter of scale and possibly also the effect where 10 or 20 years on the ‘radical’ and edgy Green position ends up looking just like ordinary common sense. Which is of course political success in itself.

              • weka …
                31 May 2015 at 9:49 am

                Yes, and shifting the centre to accept the radical isn’t passive, it takes work and intention, and that’s what the GP does.

                I also think it goes beyond political discourse to society as a whole. Having MPs talking about CC year in year out normalises the conversation across the board. The GP aren’t the only ones who’ve doing this of course, but they’ve been leaders and there is something specific about it happening from within parliament. Along the way the media change too.

                Much of that is invisible because it’s not the perceived way of effecting change, it’s not about the power and the glory. What interests me now is whether they can step up the rate of change and whether that woulc come from what they’re doing or something like what Bill is talking about whereby they get more radical again.

      • Chooky 20.3.2
        31 May 2015 at 9:53 am

        +100 weka …for comment @20.3

    • Jessica Parsons 20.4
      31 May 2015 at 9:53 am

      The Maori party worked with National and helped them into government. How’s that working for them?

    • Tracey 20.5
      31 May 2015 at 11:51 am

      I think you speak from an uninformed position on the Green Party and its policy. It has had an enormous influence on policy in NZ for over 20years and achieved it all without being on the Government benches.

  21. Thomas Forrow 21
    30 May 2015 at 9:15 pm

    Congrats to James.
    He will make a fine co leader of the Green Party
    And he WILL win Wellington Central at some stage.

  22. Sacha 22
    30 May 2015 at 9:55 pm

    Remember all the people who didn’t turn up to vote. This is not a zero-sum game where an increased Green vote means a reduced one for anyone else.

  23. millsy 23
    30 May 2015 at 10:07 pm

    I still think the Greens need to focus on knocking Labour out of second place and going for government in their own right. Do they really want to be Labour’s battered junior coalition partner, or able to dictate their own terms?

    • Clemgeopin 23.1
      30 May 2015 at 11:27 pm

      Nothing is stopping them if that is what they want to do!

      By the way, HOW do you think they can knock Labour off and be the main opposition party? Can you list a dozen or so clearly stated economic, social and environmental policies that will help the Greens to knock Labour off?

      I am very keen to see your thoughts and the list.

  24. Joy Clark 24
    30 May 2015 at 10:23 pm

    I think Teri had an orgasm on the podium….

  25. James 25
    30 May 2015 at 11:10 pm

    I think James Shaw was the only candidate I didn’t want to win.

    • Matthew Whitehead 25.1
      31 May 2015 at 3:57 am

      Just remember, a lot of people were saying that about Russel when he won, and that it wouldn’t be possible for him to fill Rod’s shoes.

      Give Shaw a chance to prove himself, and he’s likely to have his own swan song moment.

  26. Wolfgang 26
    30 May 2015 at 11:30 pm

    I don’t know much about Russel Norman, but every time I saw him on T.V (which was quite a lot), he seemed very clever, level-headed, progressive and quite ‘special’. He had a good ‘feel’ about him. I liked him!!!

    It’s sad he isn’t the leader anymore.

    From what I saw of him, he would have been a fine ‘Prime Minister’.

    If he had been the Prime Minister of N.Z, I would have been a proud Kiwi!

    • Chooky 26.1
      31 May 2015 at 9:44 am

      +100 Wolfgang…I think with three young children including a baby he needed a well earned break!….hopefully he will stay on in a very important ‘back seat’ as a strategist, researcher,organiser and leader adviser….and one who steps up when the co-leaders need a rest

      …really sometimes those behind the scenes play an even more important role than the leaders

  27. Clemgeopin 27
    31 May 2015 at 12:11 am

    I think you have not understood well.

    I prefer the Greens to woo the soft blue green environmentalists in National to improve their vote %.

    That does not mean I like to see the Greens going into coalition with National. Because that may collapse the Green votes at the next election.

    If National has the majority, then MOU to get a few crumbs to crow about in exchange for C and S is fine.

    “Methinks you have your ‘guard up’.”–Don’t know what that means in this context., but it was amusing to read the rest.

    • weka 27.1
      31 May 2015 at 12:25 am

      The GP will go for every vote they can get while campaigning on policies that are underpinned by GP principles. Hopefully Labour will find a way to work with the GP and they can present a coherent picture of a competent govt in waiting, and then more people will vote for both parties, including people from the non-vote.

      • Chooky 27.1.1
        31 May 2015 at 10:37 am

        +100 weka ….”The GP will go for every vote they can get…

      • Clemgeopin 27.1.2
        31 May 2015 at 11:18 am

        My comment was for Wolfgang who had a personal comment about me, but his comment seems to have disappeared from the thread now!

  28. felix 28
    31 May 2015 at 3:56 am

    Should I be anticipating the usual sidelining of Metiria by the media now that there’s a man in the picture?

  29. Chooky 29
    31 May 2015 at 9:56 am

    am looking forward to James Shaw’s way forward speech this afternoon

  30. Ad 30
    31 May 2015 at 10:54 am

    Whoever the leader of the Green Party is, I will vote and donate for those most likely to change the government.

    I hope this decision makes that more likely.

  31. weka 31
    31 May 2015 at 11:46 am

    Shaw’s first co-leader speech, at the GP AGM,

    “free-market capitalism is dead, and it has been 7 years”

    “there is no name for the system we have now”

    • Mike the Savage One 31.1
      31 May 2015 at 3:00 pm

      Maybe the “true” free-market capitalism” has been compromised (out of necessity), but it most certainly is not dead:
      https://www.newzealandnow.govt.nz/investing-in-nz/opportunities-outlook/economic-overview
      http://www.pwc.co.nz/banking-capital-markets-industry-sector/publications/new-zealand-banking-perspectives/april-2015/
      http://www.mbie.govt.nz/what-we-do/business-growth-agenda/sectors-reports-series
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_New_Zealand
      http://www.treasury.govt.nz/economy/mei/jan13/03.htm

      There appears to be a mix of business, banking and state management, that runs the show now, but all do (at least under this government) manage affairs in a more or less traditional capitalist way.

      “True” free-markets have never existed, and likely will never exist in any country at any time in history on this planet, as even the “freest” of such markets will uphold a minimum framework of rules and laws, protecting stakeholders, citizens and business parties from certain risks and harm.

      Also will there always be a need of some form of state, to administer and manage a capitalist or any other system, and by enforcing laws and maintaining basic infrastructures.

      New Zealand may have been protected from the worst of the Global Financial Crisis, but it is highly indebted, mostly private debt, in the form of credit taken from the main trading banks, who finance the massive housing sector and other private sector investments.

      James Shaw may be right to some degree, but the system we have, it certainly does resemble capitalist features, as we had before the GFC.

      Nice talk, but he needs to do much more to convince those that know about how it all works, to give him the credit he will need with this approach.

      • weka 31.1.1
        31 May 2015 at 3:22 pm

        “There appears to be a mix of business, banking and state management, that runs the show now, but all do (at least under this government) manage affairs in a more or less traditional capitalist way.”

        I think that’s pretty much what he said, that the ‘ideal’ of the free-market economy is dead and has been replaced by a hyrbid that we don’t have a name for yet. He wasn’t saying it was improvement.

        I also think that he’s a politician and he’s speaking in broadstroke imagery, and that (in the speech, not my sound bite) was a potent one. You’d have to talk to him to find out how deep his understanding goes, but I don’t see any reason to assume he doesn’t know what he is talking about.

        “Nice talk, but he needs to do much more to convince those that know about how it all works, to give him the credit he will need with this approach.”

        Economics and finance aren’t my field, but I took it as him positioning himself (and the GP) outside the conventional left/right ideas about the economy.

  33. Mike the Savage One 33
    31 May 2015 at 2:28 pm

    Well, I saw and listened to James Shaw on Q+A and also The Nation this morning, and followed the news, and some things stand out.

    He constantly talks about “the economy”, “business”, “Price Waterhouse Cooper”, having worked in “business” in the UK and altogether in 30 countries, sees a need to “widen” the Green’s reach, to get “more votes”, he thinks those votes can be expected from (former) National voters, and he concedes he is an urban citizen of sorts. Also he frequently repeats the word “sustainable”, wants New Zealand to address “climate change”, but apart from that, I heard little about the more traditional “green” and environmental tradition of the party.

    James Shaw stressed that policies will need to be developed, will change, in order to appeal to more voters.

    It sounds to me, as if the direction of the Green Party is intended to be changed, the whole vision and make-up of the party. Someone above already commented that there appeared to be many new faces at recent Greens meetings, many of whom supported Shaw. Maybe these are the urban professionals, who prefer a “feel-good” factor above all else?

    So as a former Green voter, I am becoming concerned, as what I heard today, does not represent the down to earth, firmly committed environmentalism I appreciate. It is a move to make the Greens more of the establishment, the system we have, using market forces, at all levels, to introduce “greener” technologies, sustainability enhancing systems, by convincing the existing business world to adopt what is being done in countries like in Europe.

    It must be concluded, that also the new “effective social services” approach of this government may appeal to the Greens of the likes of James Shaw, to “invest” in contracted, outsourced “services”, to achieve efficiencies, by paying agencies fees for presented “results”. I read a worrying report about that direction by a former Deputy C.E. in the Herald the other day, it being overly restricted to minimising costs.

    Knowing what happens with the “green movement” in Europe, I fear, that the Greens may lose their hearts and souls, and become a party supporting an actuarial driven administration, headed by technocratic “experts”, turning a post industrial society (where so many goods are imported and made with “dirty” technologies elsewhere) into one where much is “labeled” “green” or “sustainable”, but is so more in name than in fact.

    Where are the scientists within the Green Party, and where are the gardeners, farmers, foresters and fishery experts? I see few if any, to be honest.

    • weka 33.1
      31 May 2015 at 3:28 pm

      I think it’s a little soon to be predicting the downfall of the GP. For a start Shaw (and incoming members) don’t have the power to change the party that you are suggesting. Shaw himself has said it’s not up to him, that he has his own ideas but all he can do is hope to convince the party (and he acknowledged that Turei will tell him what to do). I don’t see any evidence that the party will blindly follow him into superficial feel goodism. There’s also the substantial membership that voted for Hague.

      “It must be concluded, that also the new “effective social services” approach of this government may appeal to the Greens of the likes of James Shaw, to “invest” in contracted, outsourced “services”, to achieve efficiencies, by paying agencies fees for presented “results”. I read a worrying report about that direction by a former Deputy C.E. in the Herald the other day, it being overly restricted to minimising costs.”

      Only if you think the GP has no principles and has no way to stay committed to those principles.

      “Knowing what happens with the “green movement” in Europe, I fear, that the Greens may lose their hearts and souls, and become a party supporting an actuarial driven administration, headed by technocratic “experts”, turning a post industrial society (where so many goods are imported and made with “dirty” technologies elsewhere) into one where much is “labeled” “green” or “sustainable”, but is so more in name than in fact.”

      Do you have any evidence of that? Because as a GP member I just don’t see it. I think you are projecting a whole lot of things that simply aren’t true.

      • Mike the Savage One 33.1.1
        31 May 2015 at 4:24 pm

        The Greens in Europe are still only a marginal force, apart from some few exceptions in places like Germany (local body elections).

        Like in other places, they tend to make compromises, and when “pragmatism” becomes a much repeated word, then it pays to listen up, and be careful. They gained votes and lost others in return, by moving towards “pragmatism” and so.

        As for stuff made elsewhere, that we use and consume every day, look at the labels where most computer, telecommunication, clothing, stationery and endless other products are made, how they are made, and what the “price” is, for the environment, and for workers that make them for us.

        I’d have to make extreme efforts to find any such things made sustainably, in places like for instance New Zealand.

        And “green” products are not always what they seem either, to be realistic about it, that is all I meant.

        I do believe that Green Party members have principles, but I fear some may waiver when presented with political “pragmatism”, “opportunities”, “necessities” and “need for change”.

        When it comes to all this, I remember the change within parties such as Labour, over time, and how they adopted what we now call “neoliberalism”, which was once thought of as being impossible to reconcile with any workers’ party or social-democratic party.

        The danger is real, for the Greens to make too many compromises of the wrong kind, by moving towards “the centre”, that “terrain of opportunity”, for the political pundits and pollsters.

        • weka 33.1.1.1
          31 May 2015 at 4:31 pm

          That’s all very nice Mike, but it’s basically about your beliefs and isn’t backed up by the evidence. I get that some people are concerned, but it seems their fears are based on things other than what the GP is and does.

          Labour were hijacked in the 80s and have struggled to recover ever since. One of the reasons for that is that their internal structures make the party vulnerable to take over, and hard to change once it’s happened.

          The GP has safety built in. If you don’t believe me, try explaining how you think this move to the centre would work in real world terms.

          • Mike the Savage One 33.1.1.1.1
            31 May 2015 at 5:53 pm

            It is not just belief, it is fact that Green parties are mostly rather marginal, see the Green Party in the European Parliament, and in other parliaments there:
            http://www.europarl.europa.eu/elections2014-results/en/election-results-2014.html

            https://www.bundestag.de/htdocs_e/bundestag/groups
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_2013

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greens_%28France%29
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greens_%28Netherlands%29

            And only 3.8 percent for the Greens in the recent UK election:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015

            Yes, the Greens were once stronger in Germany, but have for the last elections not done that well, being punished for having worked in a coalition government with the social democratic SPD until about 10 or so years ago, and making too many compromises. And since then they have struggled with finding a new direction, and also with internal disagreement about their leadership.

            And the elephant in the room is really, the increasing number of non voters and totally disillusioned voters, who no longer have any faith in any existing parties.

            What gives you the confidence the Greens here cannot be “hijacked”, as Labour was in 1984?

            People also lose faith, when there is much slogan talk, by whatever party, and when they see that parties are more worried about getting votes and into government, than care about principled policy. Many do then get very cynical. Buying computers, shirts, and other stuff made in China, Bangla Desh and so, made by cheap labour and in countries where it is unsafe to drink water or breathe air, and have “feel good” messiahs tell us how “green” we must be here at home, while ignoring much of the inconvenient truth, that becomes a bit hypocritical after a while.

            • weka 33.1.1.1.1.1
              31 May 2015 at 6:10 pm

              I was talking about your beliefs about the NZ Greens.

              “What gives you the confidence the Greens here cannot be “hijacked”, as Labour was in 1984?”

              The internal structures of the party (which I assume are backed by law). The membership has far more control than they do in Labour. It’s simply not possible for a handful of MPs to take control of policy, or change the core principles, or roll a leader etc.

              • Mike the Savage One …
                31 May 2015 at 6:25 pm

                Membership can change, by having more attracted by new messages and ideas, and after they sign up and become part of the decision making process, there will be change.

                Of course, I did not suggest a “hijacking” of the kind that some say happened to Labour in the past. But was even that a “hijacking”, with Roger Douglas and like minded members in the 1980s?

                I do not expect a sudden change, but James Shaw is ambitious. Only months ago he firmly rejected to take part in the leadership contest, but he soon changed his mind. Given his success in Wellington, he feels encouraged and very motivated.

                So he may feel encouraged to try new policies, and being a smart and capable speaker and debater, he may convince many to move away from where the Greens are now, over time that is.

  34. David Bachman 34
    31 May 2015 at 6:04 pm

    In a single day the appointment of James has buried a popular line of Green slagging “They’re a bunch of Hippies”. When the mockers are spouting ‘He doesn’t even drive’ they’ve got little dirt on the chap. When revealed that he doesn’t drive because he has spent his working life doing business in those world cities where a car is a liability….it could well extract a “Tell me more?”

    The guy walks and talks like a Statesman….and he has been in the job a day. The Green Party is steered by the many that pay their subs, if it is their desire to have more pull in the House, I think James is a fabulous find. A bit out of left field, worked well for Key, I think James has the same potential to cast a wider net.

  35. David Bachman 35
    1 June 2015 at 8:11 am

    Thanks weka.

  36. Dennis Frank 36
    2 June 2015 at 9:34 pm

    I told James he’d be our best candidate for co-leader before nominations opened, and I’m pleased he was elected decisively. Remember that the Green Party was formed to represent the broader green movement. Most greens don’t choose to join the party. Many know that livelihoods are generated by business. They know the left have always opposed business. Why then would they feel that the parliamentary leftist alignment of the GP is a good idea?

    I spoke fervent advocacy of that when we adopted it in March 1991, but when Helen Clark entered her second term she reinforced her refusal to work with the GP, so it was clear that our leftist alignment was a dead duck 12 years ago. Slow learners in control of the GP have since clung to this dead duck ever since, despite every other Labour leader also rejecting collaboration with the GP. I can’t explain such collective idiocy.

    Since the broader green movement has always been neither left nor right politically, the only way that the GP can be authentic in representing all green voters is by telling the public that it will be neither left nor right from now on. I sure as hell hope James grasps this basic point sufficiently to use it himself!

    That said, I hope the left does eventually get its act together. It has had a dire need to reinvent itself since the early ’70s. I’m eternally puzzled that it does not respond accordingly. Despite being neither left nor right politically since 1971, I’d be happy to help with that process. To do so would indeed be in the public interest. I hear Sue Bradford has been exploring the possibility of creating a leftist think-tank. I have commented to various folks that the proposition would only be feasible if leftists could actually think. Nigh on half a century of failure to produce any evidence of such intellectual capacity seems a hefty indication that the pig won’t fly…

    • KJT 36.1
      2 June 2015 at 10:06 pm

      Why are you in the Green party. Sounds like ACT is your real home, along with your fellow deluded.

    • Colonial Rawshark 36.2
      2 June 2015 at 10:27 pm

      Firstly Dennis, it’s very clear that you are a right winger. The fact that you may not appreciate that yourself is a bit sad.

      Secondly, it’s also particularly clear that you are a bit useless at understanding the environmental crisis facing us right this moment, and the central role of capitalism in condemning us to that.

      Lastly, “business” doesn’t describe how most people throughout most of human history, lived, and in fact, has only been central two western life for less than 300 years. It’ll be gone faster than that.

      • Dennis Frank 36.2.1
        3 June 2015 at 4:50 pm

        Your perception ain’t reality. I’ve never voted National nor supported any other right-wing option.

        You’re wrong on your second point too. I’ve seen capitalism as the primary predator upon nature since 1968. Too bad socialism has been the secondary predator upon nature since then. So I realised the left were frauds in 1971.

        Re point three, the origins of capitalism in Europe lie several centuries earlier than that. After the Italian city states got rich via trade the Dutch did so via textile production and then the English copied them. I’ve been hoping for the demise of business as usual most of my life, but cannot share your confidence that it will go fast. Human nature is to stick with what folks know works unless a better option becomes available. I hoped that the new left would abandon rhetoric in favour of articulating such a better option in the early ’70s, but I’m still waiting.