The Greens. Do We Need ’em?

Written By: - Date published: 7:20 pm, August 20th, 2018 - 139 comments
Categories: class war, election 2020, Environment, greens, james shaw, labour, marama davidson, national, nz first, Politics, Unions, workers' rights - Tags: , ,

The Green Party held their annual conference in Palmerston North over the weekend. I’m told it was actually a pretty upbeat affair and the expected ructions around caucus support for NZ First’s ‘waka jumping’ bill were muted.

That’s good, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it’s useful legislation. Anything that stops National from buying the loyalty of weak, selfish MP’s, subverting democracy at the same time, is to be welcomed.

Secondly, it shows that the Green Party caucus is united and disciplined. Importantly, it shows they can be relied on as part of a progressive government.

Now for the bad news. National are going to do all they can to destroy the Greens in the next two years. Expect the usual dirty politics and expect the usual personal attacks.

And expect National to sponsor an alternative green party.

Yep. The new partner National needs isn’t going to be found to their right, it’s actually going to be from their left.

If ACT have proved anything, it’s that the eighties are over. There is simply no significant constituency for arsehats in NZ and all ACT do is drain votes from National. Don Brash is still going to make any political vehicle look like a clown car, so there’s no rescue to be found in the racist right.

So, if No Mates National want to magic up a coalition option, it needs to have an ecological bent. Obviously, the Greens aren’t going to back the Tories, so setting up an earth mother alternative is the next best thing.

National need to put the conservative in conservation.

The genius of this is that even if the franchise party – let’s call them the New Greens – don’t make it over the 5% mark, they absolutely will take votes off the current Green Party, possibly dooming them as well.

And that would effectively leave only 3 parties to form a two party coalition.

While Winston Peters is unlikely to want to go with National, he’s going to face significant pressure to consider the option from conservatives in his caucus like Clayton Mitchell, Ron Mark and Shane ‘why use one word when ten make me sound like an orator’ Jones.

I’m told those three, and others, are lukewarm on Labour’s improvements to employment law and are looking to water down the push for industry standard pay and conditions and the right for unions to access worksites.

It would be ironic in the extreme if the Greens and Labour supported NZ First’s waka jumping legislation only to have NZ First jump out of the waka when it comes to workers’ rights.

Ultimately, we need the Greens. They are maddeningly incompetent in so many ways;  from admitting benefit fraud in the run up to the last election to reclaiming the C word last week, if there’s a way to alienate voters they’ll find it.

But they’ll need to sharpen up in the next two years because eating the Greens is National’s only path to power.

 

 

Edit: Clayton Mitchell, not Mark Mitchell.

 

139 comments on “The Greens. Do We Need ’em?”

  1. Blazer 1

    I thought we did needed them and voted for them.
    The arrogance of some of their factions as outlined by the likes of Whitehead and the feminist posters here, has made me re evaluate the merit of ever doing so again.

    • Draco T Bastard 1.1

      What has Whitehead said that’s pissed you off so much?

      • Muttonbird 1.1.1

        Blazer looks like a Teal voter to me.

        • Blazer 1.1.1.1

          certainly not as I understand the definition.
          I want progressive policies,that reflect real humanity,looking after the environment and kneecapping this ludicrous adherence to neo liberal fiscal and monetary policy.

          NZ is a wonderful country that can cater for every single citizen without being part of this western empirical mindset inflicted on us by policy formed by corporate ownership of politicians.

      • Blazer 1.1.2

        Whitehead said the gays had ‘special needs’ that needed to be prioritised and if you did not agree with that the Green Party did not want you.
        Pretty blunt/honest I guess.

        • solkta 1.1.2.1

          The fact that you say “the gays” rather than “gay people” would seem to reveal the problem.

          • McFlock 1.1.2.1.1

            I’m just imagining special needs assistants for “the gays”, sitting beside them in policy meetings putting glitter on all the relevant printouts and maybe holding an emergency supply of pink highlighters. And explaining policy remits in terms that are outrageously fabulous.

          • Blazer 1.1.2.1.2

            Are you fucking serious?

          • Muttonbird 1.1.2.1.3

            It’s part of a larger split in the left which is can be observed in the defence of anti-feminists by some older, more basic, blokes of the left of the past. They accuse feminists of all sorts of crimes just like Jordan Peterson does.

            Trotter is one.
            Our own Redlogix is one.
            Phil Quin is one.

            There’s a few pieces by this manly man left recently, attacking ‘identity politics’ (whatever that is). They simply cannot bring themselves to accept what the feminist movement has achieved for humankind and basically want the whole movement scrapped.

            • RedLogix 1.1.2.1.3.1

              Our own Redlogix is one. … They accuse feminists of all sorts of crimes just like Jordan Peterson does.

              Can you be a little more precise please? One crime, or lots of them?

              • Muttonbird

                You were effusive in your praise of Jordan Peterson a day or two ago. Peterson sees bloodletting Marxists and bleeding feminists behind every lamppost.

                You like so many other RWNJs suggest that Peterson is merely misrepresented by the feminist dominated media, but really he isn’t misrepresented, he’s just terrible at explaining his Year 12 psychology spam.

            • Patricia Bremner 1.1.2.1.3.2

              Muttonbird, You are so correct about those named bodies, especially Phil Quin.

          • corodale 1.1.2.1.4

            Yeah, wasn’t it Hitler who referred to them as the gays? And what sort of special needs? Q. Would subsidising gay brothels help? A. Whitehead? Could win votes with the banking community, help fill this new blue-green niche 😉

        • Draco T Bastard 1.1.2.2

          [citation needed]

    • SaveNZ 1.2

      Lordie, someone mentions “the gays’ aka not deemed appropriate speak and next minute we have the references to Hitler… over reaction that has come to encapsulate the identify politics and woke left brigade who are driving off the ordinary voters not versed enough in post structuralist words speak or the LGBTQIA community identities…

      Sorry many see quite a bit of difference to someone who has apparently not written the required phrase by addition of the word “the” before gays, to someone else apparently referencing it to Hitler who gassed at least 5.5 million Jews and millions of other victims, killing of an estimated 19.3 million civilians and prisoners of war and 28.7 million soldiers and civilians died as a result of military action in the European theatre.

      Perhaps an overreaction….

  2. Muttonbird 2

    So who to lead this new (not so new – the Nat lobbyists have been pushing this for ages now) Teal Party? The new Teal Party which will sink the socially conscious Greens?

    Answer: Julie Ann Genter

    You’ll find that no Nat spin doctor has ever, or will ever, say a bad word about JAG. In fact the Nats’ number one activist, David Farrar, wrote a gushing piece on her just today. Make no mistake, this is the person they see as closet to their vision of an ineffectual, window-dressing, don’t-rock-the-business-boat Teal Party.

    They’ve tried Shaw and he has stood firm on both environmental and social concerns so now they’re trying to buy Genter.

    Good luck to them because I’d say the harder they go at it the more resolute the wider Greens community will become.

    • Bearded Git 2.1

      JAG is far too smart and too green to go near the Nats. For instance they wouldn’t want a bar of her transport policies.

      Imagine Crusher riding to the hospital to have a baby….oh that image has put me off my breakfast.

  3. greywarshark 3

    Oh bloody hell. Stop attacking the people who have kept the banner for a better NZ high and proudly and determinedly for so long. If the rest in the SEP parties had half the sticking power and integrity the Greens would have been eclipsed. Instead they battle on trying to achieve something without losing their heart and soul.

    I think they are a bit war weary and get attacked from within by the purists who are full of soul but not a patch on policy and tactics as those with CosbyTextor training. You might think the Greens are more Laurel and Hardy trp but if they aren’t performing to your expectations, why don’t you get in and help rather than weakening them?

    If you are so good with all the moves, why don’t you get onto the dance circuit and show the pollies how to rise above Dirty Dancing?

    • Bearded Git 3.1

      +1000 grey…what this post fails to recognise is that the Greens have visionary policies that the others follow 10 -20 years later. That’s why we need them.

      The Green brand is VERY strong-if the Nats (and devious right-wing TOP) couldn’t get rid of them at the last election they will never get rid of them.

  4. Grey Area 4

    I fear you may be right TRP. I was at the conference at the weekend and your summary is pretty accurate.

    I also door-knocked for the Greens last elections and was told a number of times basically that if the Greens just kept to environmental issues and avoided those pesky social justice issues (my words) then the household just might consider voting for them.

    So yes there is a group out there who would feel so much better voting for an environmental party whose platform would allow people to feel good they were somehow saving the planet (or at least destroying it a a little bit more slowly) while presumably enabling the return of a major party whose MO is to rape and pillage that same environment for profit and once again cause major social and economic harm while doing it.

    • Muttonbird 4.1

      Yeah, the Teals would be similar to the Maori Party in that they’d be advocating for policy which would be completely swamped by the core ideology of the Nats, which is the sacrosanctity of business no matter the cost.

      In the case of the Maori Party, they imagined they were advocating for Maori but they were in bed with Tories who pretty much hate Maori or are at least very, very ambivalent toward them.

      Similarly, the Teals would imagine they were doing something for the environment but all of their supposed coalition partner’s policy would go completely against that and uphold the requirements of business first, second, and maybe even third.

      Difference being not as many Tories actually hate the environment the way they hate Maori.

  5. Ken 5

    More than we ever did.

  6. McFlock 6

    I don’t see how an apolitical (for want of a better term) environmental party would work.

    Every environmental issue, from local waterways up to AGW, is tied in to how we use and distribute finite resources, how a GDP-plus industry has myriad “negative externalities” (or “harm to other people, as a normal person would phrase it). And if you’re not going to address negative externalities, there’s no reason to have any environmental legislation at all.

    So the problem for an apolitical environmental party is to justify how to make a forestry company keep waterways intact while ignoring the industry’s continuing worker death rate.

    I also suspect that the Greens will increase their vote from here, so even if a sockpuppet tory-green party takes a few percent, the Greens will probably be ok. As you say their principled stand on benefits ended up costing them bigtime.

    • Good reasoning, McFlock. The contradictions seem insurmountable. Though, somewhat surprisingly, in other countries there seem to have been more blue green outfits elected than genuine green parties. Often those parties have started as splits in the existing Green party, and electoral success has come from having a populist leader and a policy of being open to coalitions with the parties of the right or left.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_conservatism

      If a conservative ecological party was to make it to Parliament here, they’d probably need to be gifted a seat, a la ACT in Epsom. That probably means a sitting Nat MP in a safe urban seat suddenly coming out as an ecologist. Which seems unlikely at present, but who knows?

      in that scenario, the ‘new’ green party only needs 2 or 3% to be a useful tool for National. ACT can’t offer that level of support any more. It would be a huge call for National to sacrifice a seat, but if the alternative is permanent opposition, they’d be mad not to consider it.

      • Ad 6.1.1

        You could call it the Nick Smith Undead Party and gift it to him in Nelson.

        • te reo putake 6.1.1.1

          That’s the one name that instantly occurred to me, Ad. However, I’m not sure Nelson is safe enough (or urban enough). Helensville?

          • Ad 6.1.1.1.1

            Green vote in Nelson is strong, so is Smith vote, so is National vote.

            Plus there are blue-green activists there already.

            Also plenty of survivalist conservative donor potential.

            • te reo putake 6.1.1.1.1.1

              Crikey, you’re correct. Weird how the Greens got 3 times as many electorate votes as they did party votes.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_(New_Zealand_electorate)#2017_election

            • SaveNZ 6.1.1.1.1.2

              If Greens and Labour had done a deal for electoral votes in Nelson, then we would not have Nick Smith! We would also have a more left wing electoral MP for Auckland Central.

              Labour and Greens need to get it together for the electoral votes next election. Tired of seeing the vote split allowing the Natz in.

              This means Labour and Greens have to talk and do a deal where only 1 candidate stands if possible, to make sure zero confusion for voters! And Labour needs to make it fair for the Greens because they had a valid point that they get party votes while running an electoral candidate….. Part of this is also a sort of naivety of the Greens too and spreading themselves too thin aka going for the Maori votes for example last election.

              I suspect that a large majority of voters are voting more for exiting the National party from power than gushing adoration to either Labour or Greens… I’m probably in that camp…. and the strong No Natz vote, has not really been addressed strategically by either Labour or Greens and thus allows the creation of new parties that suck up votes as both Labour and Greens constantly repel their own lefties with odd decisions and a pretence of listening.

      • McFlock 6.1.2

        Frankly, TOP getting a populist leader (and I doubt any NZ economist would really be up to the job – their careers generally involve reading entrails and then reinterpreting events in order to support their predictions and economic catechism. This does not lend oneself to habitually changing your mind to adopt and sell other people’s policy ideas) would be a worse bump in Green polling than a bluegreen proxy party.

        I suspect they BGs would plug a national park or marine park as their “environmental” policy achievement to be gifted by the nats, and have enough waffle in the rest of the environment portfolio to deflect from the fact they’ll do nothing to clean up the environment that would involve industry being less damaging.

        Likely candidates would be the exgreens who decided Turei was too much for them to handle just before the goddamned election and quit parliament. Fuck those guys. But I don’t see either of them getting 3%. What they might do is drag more environmental issues into the election horserace. Which would open up the field to the Greens. Praising with faint damnation, if you will.

        • Dennis Frank 6.1.2.1

          Something deterred Lucy Lawless after she was seen on the tv news at the GP conference sitting next to Norman, 2014. Too bad we don’t know what happened. If TOP recruits her, all bets are off.

          • McFlock 6.1.2.1.1

            Deterred her from what? Didn’t she help the Greens out last year with some speeches?

          • RedLogix 6.1.2.1.2

            Good pick Dennis. I seem to recall some TOP newsletter hinting at a big name recruitment before the previous election; but it came to nothing.

            • McFlock 6.1.2.1.2.1

              Well, she campaigned for the Greens in september last year, so I don’t know what Dennis is on about, or who TOP were on about either.

              • Dennis Frank

                I expected her to become a candidate for parliament – in which case she would be unbeatable as candidate for co-leader. I was unaware she had done that public support for the Greens during the election campaign, which does rather imply she chose not to support TOP!

                Interesting, eh? Several years ago when I first participated on this site she & Gareth M had gone public in calling for a blue-green party. No convergence on a common-interest basis since then seems profoundly significant. She must be averse to becoming a politician.

                • McFlock

                  Only reference I can find to that is apparently Morgan plugged the bluegreen idea around 2014. No mention of Lawless being involved that I could find.

                  • Dennis Frank

                    Just to clarify, they issued separate calls for it that both made the news, not necessarily the same day. In fact, may have been weeks apart, my memory is vague on that. Didn’t mean to imply any collaboration tween the two.

                    • McFlock

                      Can I suggest a quick google just to check your recollects before you submit a comment? I try to do it, and it’s always worthwhile.

        • RedLogix 6.1.2.2

          I agree that a more centrist environmental party will have unpredictable consequences. But tell me, how many elections have the Greens contested now? And yet even on a good day they can barely rely on 10%.

          That’s just not good enough for our environment. And you know exactly why; poorly masked, hard-left identity politics is toxic to 90% of kiwis.

          Numerous people have made the same simple, brute point over and over, yet the Greens persist in doubling down on failure, arrogantly insisting that only THEY have a moral monopoly on a heart-felt concern for the living planet.

          • McFlock 6.1.2.2.1

            Thing is, would that be a good day or just not a bad day? Because last year’s election was bloody abysmal for them, and they still got 6%. They lost a deputy leader, and two senior caucus members packed a sad just as the campaign heated up.

            We’re never going to agree on the “identity politics” thing.

            But how can any party stand strongly for the environment without “hard-left” economic and social policies? Rent wofs cut energy use. Clean water requires all industries to literally clean up their own shit. AGW requires removal of fossil fuels, which requires ensuring that those workers have alternatives. And any declaration of conservation areas requires ToW consultation with Iwi (whoops identity politics, shame about the Treaty being signed).

            Plastic bags were the low-hanging fruit – get businesses to look environmentally friendly by not providing what consumer demand had required them to provide for free. I’m sure stores all weep about not having to buy rolls of bags any more. What other issues are like that?

            • RedLogix 6.1.2.2.1.1

              Ok so next election NZ is going to wake up the error of it’s ways and the Greens are going to romp in with a majority?

              Wake up … the problem is not the policies. It’s not even the MP’s who do a pretty good job. And don’t lecture me about the linkage between social inequality and poor environmental outcomes. Hell I was probably commenting on that here in 2007. And I voted Green at least four or five times before the last election.

              Nope the problem is the Green party members themselves; all convinced of their own moral and ethical superiority, spouting special empathy for the poor and virtue signalling over everyone (hell been there done that myself so I know what it looks like). But scratch the surface a bit and suddenly it gets ugly … all too often the unsubtle implication is “wall meet revolution”.

              • McFlock

                No, I think if the Greens do a solid campaign with neither major fuckup nor major scoop, they’ll probably get about 8% or a little over.

                Sure, a lot of greens are hippy jerks. It goes with the territory. There was quite a fun “drinking liberally” even organised in a pub around my parts, the Green organisers shifted it to a “more accessible” vegan restaurant with overpriced beers and barefoot hippies eating lentils and farting. I stopped going.

                So you’re in favour of “hard left” social policies in a green party (so much for the bluegreens then), you just don’t like the identity politics. Does that include addressing the gender pay gap, boards and party caucuses being disproportionately male and European, half the prison population being Maori, and other systemic socioeconomic-based injustices resulting from centuries of rampant capitalism?

                • RedLogix

                  There was quite a fun “drinking liberally” even organised in a pub around my parts,

                  In that case we probably bumped into each other … and yes I stopped going for much the same reasons. It stopped being fun and became precious.

                  Absolutely we agree on broadly the social ills you list; we differ on the best strategy to deal to them. My starting point always was this; there is a ‘mutually interdependent’ relationship between the individual and the society they live in. A search will find I’ve used that phrase a number of times over the years.

                  The hard left has emphasized the collective social responsibility for decades, while in reaction conservative people like Jordan Peterson are usefully saying that our individual sovereignty and agency is deprecated at our peril. My view always has been that BOTH viewpoints bring something essential to the discussion …. a mutual interdependence that crucially each places an acceptable boundary on the other.

                  And without so many fancy words, 90% of kiwis intuit that the Greens flirt with that boundary too keenly.

                  • McFlock

                    30% of kiwis are nats. 30% are left to varying degrees. The other 30% are too busy trying to live, or too alienated from the entire political system to bother with it.

                    And conservative individual sovreignty only extends to a very narrow group of people who already have it by virtue of their position in society. What you call “identity politics” is extending that agency to everyone else, too.

                    • RedLogix

                      And conservative individual sovereignty only extends to a very narrow group of people

                      And that is the pivot. I’ve always understood that while we have little control over many of the external aspects of our lives, we were ALWAYS accountable for the ethical choices we made. No matter how constrained our material and social circumstances, there is ALWAYS something we can take responsibility for, no matter how modest or unspectacular the first step may be.

                      Yes the game is deeply unequal, only a tiny minority of us will ever be wealthy, talented, highly accomplished or widely acclaimed for our success in life. In whatever field.

                      Many years ago I made an awful mistake I still regret; it turns out I had a modestly innate talent playing the flute. After a year or so I could knock out more than three octaves and hold a half decent melody. But then there was that bastard Irishman James Galway and his bloody golden flute. His range, virtuosity and sheer magic seemed so far out of reach I felt overwhelmed and envious. As an act of bloody-mindedness I gave it away, and the chance to actually achieve something modest and rewarding for myself slipped through my fingers. In hindsight this was my fault, not Galway ‘oppressing’ me as I framed it at the time.

                      Most of us don’t have much to bring to the game; circumstances constrain us horribly. But spitting the dummy and sulking on the sidelines betrays that potential we are all gifted.

                    • McFlock

                      Sure, we’re all accountable for our decisions.

                      Except, obviously, those decisions we make that help preserve the gender pay gap, over-representation of some people in prisons, under-representation of women and minorities in positions of power, and so on.

                      Heck, with those decisions we get encouraged to stick to business as usual, and any systemic effort we might make to address those iniquities is regarded as identity politics and pc-gone-mad.

                  • Draco T Bastard

                    My starting point always was this; there is a ‘mutually interdependent’ relationship between the individual and the society they live in.

                    Without society there are no individuals and without the individuals there is no society.

                    while in reaction conservative people like Jordan Peterson are usefully saying that our individual sovereignty and agency is deprecated at our peril.

                    The problem with that is that by having to live in a society then some of our individual sovereignty is lost. We cannot do what we want because it affects others giving them a say in what we can do. This is what the Libertarians in Act and the Conservatives/Liberals/Others in National don’t understand.

                    That’s why they all go on about property rights and demand that they be allowed to do whatever they like on their property. The ever worsening state of our waterways shows the inevitable result of such thinking. When people don’t take into account the effects that their actions have on those around them.

                    My view always has been that BOTH viewpoints bring something essential to the discussion …. a mutual interdependence that crucially each places an acceptable boundary on the other.

                    Your actions and words speak otherwise. You want those boundaries to be as small as possible and not as strict as they need to be.

                    • RedLogix

                      Yes, probably because I’m nowhere near as authoritarian as you.

                    • Draco T Bastard

                      It’s not about being authoritarian.

                      It’s about the need to live together in a way that both encourages individuality but doesn’t allow someone to affect others without their say so.

                      You’re almost seeing that – almost – but you’re you seem to be shying away from it as well. The latter seems to come from your increasing belief in capitalism.

                      Capitalism itself is the most authoritarian belief system around precisely because it allows a few to ride roughshod over everyone else.

                    • RedLogix []

                      People riding roughshod over each other, predates capitalism by at least a few million years or so.

                • Hanswurst

                  Sure, a lot of greens are hippy jerks. It goes with the territory. There was quite a fun “drinking liberally” even organised in a pub around my parts, the Green organisers shifted it to a “more accessible” vegan restaurant with overpriced beers and barefoot hippies eating lentils and farting. I stopped going.

                  I can easily identify with your situation. However, it does stand to reason that people with different culinary/dietary priorities might have difficulty socialising with each other over a beer or two with the option of food. It would also make sense for all of the groups, be they vegans, raw-foodists, omnivores or whatever, might be largely blind to the degree to which their own preferred watering hole causes stress to the other groups for various reasons.

                  You, for instance, seem to be assuming that choosing to go somewhere with relatively mainstream options is just an obvious default setting that people of all stripes should easily learn to deal with, rather than a decision that affects how comfortable people feel for whom that isn’t how they normally choose to socialise.

                  • McFlock

                    Yeah, but the event was “drinking liberally”, not “lentillate liberally”. It started in a pub, and I preferred it that way. They didn’t move it to another watering hole, they moved it to a vegan restaurant, with restaurant prices for the “drinking” part of the event title.

              • greywarshark

                Good points there. I think Green put things down on paper about high standards of this and that but how to apply the recipe and in what proportions? I have the feeling that they can think something through ethically, but shy away from tying it down to an example ie this is how we envisage this approach working.

                It almost seems like a belief system as economics is. This is how it is according to our models, and we have included all the factors we have decided are important, now if we follow the plan we can’t be wrong. Any failure and the matter must be an anomaly, an exception, it is an externality. If something doesn’t turn out right, persevere till it does. but it must be right because we all sat in a circle, worked it out on a grid, followed the right paradigm.

                • RedLogix

                  Exactly. Whenever you have a rigid ideology that sounds good as a big idea, but the devil turns up in the details … you have a problem.

              • Exkiwiforces

                You’re hit the nail on its head, at why I don’t vote green is because of their so- called moral and ethical superiority and their so-called empathy to the working class and poor.

                I had a friend in Greens who asked me to a talk on Peacekeeping in particular my time in East Timor. So I got my notes, PP slides, extra marterial from cousin who was with NZBATT 1 as Engineer also my cousin and I agree that I must deliver a warts’ n all presentation. That Peacekeeping isn’t an easy operation to do regardless of the mandate as one must have all the tools in toolbox ready to go unlike some who we need a half toolbox to do the job.

                It was the first and last time I would ever get involved with any Green Party anywhere. To the point I give up talking as the verbal abuse got a point some of them accuse me lying, the pictures etc were fake and that’s not how you do Peacekeeping according to small minority as they knew what Peacekeeping was or insulting my background as workclass male with all the usual shit.

                Anyway I asked them what are their expectations and experience of or doing Peacekeeping operations? Still waiting for a response btw.

                • Draco T Bastard

                  That is a pity. Many in the Greens need a good wake-up to the realities of their ideology.

                • SaveNZ

                  Probably an example of a minority overtaking the majority and somehow wrestling control into some sort of niche… well I don’t go to any political type rallies at all, mostly because somehow they often attract a certain type of person as per Exkiwiforces experience, plus most people with families outside of politics or their jobs around politics, are too busy.

                  So another avenue for Labour and Greens to explore is ordinary voters to work out why they have languished … it is called being out of touch when they have zero idea what the majority think and form decisions based on MSM and a small sample of hard core incestuous political view points… that may (or increasingly not) be accurate for their supporters.

                  Jacinda was their trump card for Labour because she just looked normal and has normal instincts… aka meeting the teachers on strike and telling off Mark Richardson. Sadly the more advice she gets and the more high level events she goes too, the less fresh she will be as she gets encapsulated with often self serving networkers viewpoints.

                  The Greens were on Q&A and they looked in a bubble. I really don’t think they have any idea what people think of them. They even missed out one of their most popular policies among ordinary middle NZ such as banning the bag. One of the panelists kindly mentioned it to them as being one of their ‘wins’ that they did not even seem to realise was going to be very popular. (Aka anyone who goes to the beach, walks around or what have you in increasingly rubbish filled areas). Instead I think the greens started going on about waste management but not sure, I was starting to lose concentration. They looked like they had the worst media adviser who had rehearsed them so much they did not seem genuine in their manner, very UN Green!

              • Puckish Rogue

                I think you hit the nail on the head and hopefully someone in the Greens will read what you’ve said

              • Bewildered

                Yep virtue signalling is their downfall I see on another site JAg has been pictured on 10 different bikes in her promos I am sure they are all hers and she rides all the time when a camera and the press is about

        • Draco T Bastard 6.1.2.3

          Frankly, TOP getting a populist leader (and I doubt any NZ economist would really be up to the job – their careers generally involve reading entrails and then reinterpreting events in order to support their predictions and economic catechism.

          QFT

          I suspect they BGs would plug a national park or marine park as their “environmental” policy achievement to be gifted by the nats, and have enough waffle in the rest of the environment portfolio to deflect from the fact they’ll do nothing to clean up the environment that would involve industry being less damaging.

          Didn’t the Blue-Greens in National come out in support of that irrigation scheme for farmers that was going to be a major source of pollution?

  7. Ad 7

    If there ever were a split it will be hard leftwards.

    That’s simply a consequence of the Green Party being in power and having to make compromises that don’t fit with the party membership who don’t accept compromises.

    With Organise Aotearoa already springing up, the MPs will have to e even more careful to unite those splitter factions that helped bring down the Alliance.

  8. Ad 8

    The Greens are seriously missing communications muscle within their staff.

    Ever since their main comms guy headed to Ardern’s office, they just haven’t had the cut-through, and for the policy delivery they are getting, they are seriously unrewarded in the placement of media stories and interviews.

  9. Stuart Munro 9

    Hell yes we need them.

    But we need them much tougher on issues like rights grabs for water, 1080, dairy fouling, the scallop fishery, overseas investment and so forth – not just grabbing at low hanging fruit like plastic bags. Ideally in fact they’d have a sustainability warchest at least on a par with Shane Jones’ regional development fund.

    Sure the Gnats will pimp out a splitter bluegreen party. But no one with a bioscience education or any integrity at all will be fooled for a moment.

    The real question is whether Labour wise up. The Greens are in trouble because Labour wimped out over the social issues raised by Metiria. In the short term they may figure they’ll benefit – but eating one’s coalition partners is a recipe for a spell in opposition.

    I have some reservations about Green behavior in government – but disingenuous trolls and morons like Bridges usually pick semantically empty issues to cry wolf over. If they could sort the environmental wheat from chaff they wouldn’t be brown in the first place.

    • dukeofurl 9.1

      Oh please …..”The Greens are in trouble because Labour wimped out over the social issues raised by Metiria. ”

      That was an own goal…. it would be better for Greens to stay away from social issues as their highest vote electorates are those with ‘high house prices…high incomes…etc.

      • Stuart Munro 9.1.1

        It was a genuine social issue relating to matters on which Labour have subsequently expressed considerable concern.

        They simply didn’t fancy the media shitstorm of facing the issue head on, like an honest person would. Which is understandable on some level, but cowardly.

      • Blazer 9.1.2

        Dead right an own goal of epic proportions that decimated Green support which was accelerating until that strategic blunder.

        • Stuart Munro 9.1.2.1

          Meh – it was a schwerpunkt.

          You don’t win the war by avoiding them.

          • Blazer 9.1.2.1.1

            turned into weltschmerz going by polling.

            • Stuart Munro 9.1.2.1.1.1

              If the coalition had front footed it they’d’ve won.

              Instead they let pathetic pieces of shit like Garner and Gower run with it.

              • Blazer

                they did ..’win’…as far as I know..anyway. 😉

                • Stuart Munro

                  Yeah, well you’re just a troll.

                  They took a stand on an important issue. Their allies left them swinging in the wind. But have subsequently come in behind many related issues.

                  Greens haven’t polled over 10% since.

                  • Blazer

                    ‘They took a stand on an important issue’…did they learn anything from it?
                    Doesn’t look like they did with Marama making a cunt of herself and Golriz rebooting her Walter Mittyesque resume.

                    In politics you pick battles you can win.

                    • Stuart Munro

                      They could’ve won – they were getting a significant positive public response as well as the reactionary bullshit from unevolved media morons like Mike.

                      I understand that, as a troll, you would prefer opposing parties to “learn” to wimp out like Labour every time the 1%ers and corporate psychopaths clear their throats, but that’s not how you get a democracy.

                      Metiria led on a key social policy issue – she showed her quality. And Labour showed theirs.

                  • Blazer

                    labelling someone as a troll is the typical refuge of the impotent.
                    You just keep flogging that blue vein flute..to no avail.

                    • Stuart Munro

                      Please spare us the details of your tragic romantic life.

                      Trolls are defined by their behavior – crude negative arguments, sledging, witlessness, social irresponsibility, cynicism, interfering with young billygoats and wrestling inoffensive mead drinkers.

                      That’s you buster.

                • Draco T Bastard

                  Just not as strongly as they could have.

              • KJT

                Typical Labour, however, letting the right wing frame the issue, again!

      • KJT 9.1.3

        The only, own goal, was the underestimation of the degree of racism, misogyny and bene bashing out their.
        Maybe it was naif to expect empathy for a struggling young mum, made good, while English and Key, burgling from the tax payer,get a free pass.
        Always hard for principled and ethical people to understand the bad faith and bullshit from the right wing, and entitled chardonnay socialists, who have no real experience of struggling.

    • Bearded Git 9.2

      +100 Stuart
      There are some smart Labour voters who realise they need the Greens to have any chance of forming a government and I know people who party voted Green at the last election for tactical reasons .

      But there are still too many Labour people who don’t “get” MMP.

  10. dukeofurl 10

    I can see national funding the TOP party next election . Not as a possible partner in government but to steal 1 -2% of votes away from the greens.
    Even 1% off the green vote , so they can reduce the number of seats the Greens get and even the off chance they force Greens below 5%- not likely but it might be worth a go.

  11. Dennis Frank 11

    Since this scenario has been failing to play out for three years at least, obviously the key to the situation is why the bluegreens haven’t been put out into the arena to compete as a separate party. I suspect that Nat polling makes the scenario non-viable. Farrar knows, & his reluctance to address the issue is revealing – unless anyone here can testify that he has been discussing it on kiwiblog (I don’t bother looking due to it not being worth the effort).

    The Progressive Greens failed to impact under a similar scenario so the Nats likely have a bias against even trying. Sensible repositioning of TOP therefore is their best bet. They would expect enough voters to choose the neoliberalism pig with TOP as lipstick on the front.

    The achilles heel of the current GP is their failure to appeal to pakeha males. That’s due to a deliberate choice driven by leftists: focus on the under-privileged via minority group representation. Morally appropriate decision-making, but it ends up skewing what ought to be a fully-inclusive plan. No surprise that pakeha males are starting to notice the tacit discrimination against them. Hasn’t bothered me personally thus far, since my inner leftist agrees with rectifying historical discrimination, but my inner centrist sees the problem looming ahead.

    So all TOP needs to do is tell the public “hey, the Greens are a rainbow coalition, we’ll look after all you guys they’re leaving out”. Ought to pull a goodly portion of kiwi males away from National & Labour if they present as both Green & progressive, they’ll think. Kiwi males who think neoliberalism is progressive will go for it (`not wacky, sensible’).

    • Ad 11.1

      There’s that bloke Shaw.
      That’s some real leftie whitebread boy to hang with.

      Hard enough to get older males to a Labour Party branch meeting let alone the Greens.

      • Dennis Frank 11.1.1

        Yeah James does serve as an appropriate role model but you have to factor in how much other kiwi male voters resonate with his style. How many are suit-wearers? How many wear that short old-fashioned haircut? And of all those, how many will be comfortable being grouped in with the rainbow minorities? Not many.

        • Ad 11.1.1.1

          That sliver of extra Khandallah and Grey Lynn male voters are all in white shirts.

          Greens have long banked the organic orange and anti-plastic-bag girls, Raglan Outsiders, and Tiny Housers.

          That .7% above 5% threshold are all waiting to see if Shaw can deliver for the corporates – so that is where he is putting his entire Ministerial energy. That .7% are white, male, rich, techie, urban, and see Labour’s approach to business as mere welfare.

          • Dennis Frank 11.1.1.1.1

            Well, sustainable business is mainstreaming decisively now. But voting for the brand on that basis only works for some, eh? Non-tribalists. Those motivating by identity politics are the vast majority nowadays, and man, those identity affiliations are powerful magnets, pulling folks towards some groups and repelling them from others. Framing themselves on that basis has worked for the GP in a coalition-building way in the past but now I see it hitting a plateau.

            Funny how few sporting leaders enter politics. Both the GP & TOP would get a significant poll lift if a kiwi equivalent of Imran Kahn joined. Imagine Joseph Parker or Steven Adams or Richie McCaw doing so!

            • RedLogix 11.1.1.1.1.1

              It’s a reasonable thought Dennis, but I think kiwis don’t like seeing their sporting heroes stooping to politics without some authenticity bolstering the transition.

              For example Susan Devoy, fabulous squash champion, never quite fired as Race Relations Commissioner. She actually made a fair fist of the job, but I somehow think the public never quite warmed to the idea.

  12. corodale 12

    No way the neo-liberals could fake a green partner, n get members, let alone votes.

    Though a friendly Green split has potential; a Values Party focusing on peace, rural and organics, plus a Green Party focusing on urban-pinko and climate, could win more votes and work together. But this requires electorate seats first.

    • greywarshark 12.1

      Where are the actual people in your idea – it seems a set of sectors viewed objectively. Some subjective practicality would be welcomed by me if I saw it anywhere in this post. Someone looking at how to make a living at something that was valued in a post-job world with technobastards thinking up ever more complex ways of screwing us, while happily telling us life is so exciting.

      Secure warm and adequate places to live, ways to interact with the community and earn some tokens and kiwis sufficient to facilitate a satisfactory and interesting life within society. What will we be doing, having street stalls selling our wares for local money? Holding lunchtime concerts in cafes, and earning for the music? Making tincture of dandelion for health? Fixing the current methods of transport. Having a hot noodle bar, not a shop so the overheads weren’t so high?

      People need other people grounded in thoughts of humanity as much as informed political players.

      • Dennis Frank 12.1.1

        Yes, all that is most important. Electoral support builds more via authenticity than sophisticated manipulation. I feel the current GP is still grounded in that grass-roots gnosis from way back, fortunately, regardless of the various criticisms I often make of their political positioning, strategy & style.

        • corodale 12.1.1.1

          Greyshark and Dennis, yes, all true.
          NZ or abroad, the progressive campaigning we need is so often fractured; by technocratic bureaucracy, capital and finance, and families destroyed by all that plus the divide between the pc-left and the realists.
          My projects never got far, and I think I would cost the Greens votes if I hit the campaign trail, so political action remain mostly within the market mechanism, milking organic cows… Look I’ll just say it:

          “Green Economic Policy doesn’t comply with The Charter requirement to limit growth.”

          Meanwhile Labour/NZF are sinking a few billion dollars into USA industry, for a 5-eyes military upgrade. That is a BIG commitment to business-as-usual.

          Many of the Greens would like their policy to comply with their own Charter (found a positive statement 🙂 ), but ya know.

          • Dennis Frank 12.1.1.1.1

            The balance currently required is between Greens policies & Charter specs on one side and the likelihood of building the Green support base in the court of public opinion on the other hand.

            For many in the party, principles dominate their thinking. Brand differentiation. But that’s only part of marketing. For any consumer, the quality of the product is what counts. So voters are motivated by their perception of the Greens as being worthy of support (or not).

            So in the marketplace of public opinion, the political track record of the GP will carry much more weight than the principled policy positions the GP has adopted. Pragmatism must therefore prevail over principles. I supported our caucus decision on the waka bill accordingly. I see it as a positive indicator for the future. Jeanette is concerned about changes to caucus rules that resulted from this – not just the decision itself.

            She’s right to be concerned, but since our Exec hasn’t informed the party yet we don’t know what these changes are! Members will now focus on the extent to which caucus is operating independently from the GP constitutional structure.

          • greywarshark 12.1.1.1.2

            corodale
            First we have principles and beliefs that we are taught, or not. Then we grow up believing them until we find that some people say them but don’t do them. Our beliefs are dented.

            Then in NZ we notice that the anti-society policies that have been hit into place in our society with the head of a rubber hammer seem jammed into place. Now we have to weaken that squeeze and pop the cork, unscrew the lid somehow. I like analogies.

            One way to get a tight lid unscrewed is to upend jar on saucer and pour very hot water to height of lid, thus expanding it. Then turn jar up and apply pressure to lid. That is what many of us seem to be doing. Hopefully we will succeed to free the jar’s contents for good that we require in time to be able to utilise it against the deterioration now and to come.

            Giving up isn’t an option for the far-sighted person with principle, and encouraging others in their own efforts to succeed is likely to result in exponential gain. Anyway you are doing your best, and others, and together we might get a victory beer or quaff of some sort eventually.

        • greywarshark 12.1.1.2

          Grounded is good, and reaching for the stars sounds good, but the middle area where we live requires understanding of our own and general human deviousness. How devious we are is important to be concerned about so we don’t stray from those grass root ideals but don’t cling to foolish expectations.

          Understanding the other side’s thinking and knowing their likely machiavellian moves must not be overlooked. We don’t want to be led by people who can see the path on the far side of the river but will try to walk on water to get to it.

  13. Bill 13

    When you’d have difficulty passing a cigarette paper through the gap between National and NZ Labour, and when the Greens have had their vote cannabilised by NZ Labour as the party has been assimilated by NZ Labour (the Greens running with Liberal economic prescriptions now)…

    Metiria Turei might have been the last opportunity for a left turn from the Green Party. I don’t share this perspective that would have us believe she sank the Green Party with her push on WINZ.

    There was a groundswell of support – and then there was that Paddy Gower bullshit poll using the Paddy Gower method of polling that made claims of tanking support, that went alongside the rest of the media marching in lock-step, Ardern cutting Turei out of any future government and Shaw desperately talking the Greens down after Metiria’s resignation.

    I don’t think we need this mere adjunct of NZ Labour, Green Party.

    The NZ political landscape is in a state of liberal capture – any colour you like comes out as much of a muchness.

    • Bearded Git 13.1

      Gower was in my Friday night watering hole this week and have seen him there a few times…he must have a house in Wanaka….he almost (but not quite) put me off my Emersons.

  14. Morrissey 14

    Of course we need the Greens. Labour, the party that selected Willie Jackson, Greg O’Connor and Stuart Nash, has no one with the courage and integrity of Marama Davidson.

  15. thechangeling 15

    The Greens were originally a spin-off from the Labour Party whose members got peeved off by Rogernomics in the 1980’s so there’s a natural hybridisation there. Under MMP I’d say the Greens are an essential part of the mix in order for a centre left coalition to remain in power.

    • Dennis Frank 15.1

      You got your history wrong. Try reading Christine Dann’s history of green politics, downloadable thesis pdf here: researcharchive.lincoln.ac.nz/handle/10182/1905

      • thechangeling 15.1.1

        I remember a commentator saying the Greens were bolstered by disaffected Labour supporters in the 1980’s. The Values Party were the original Green Party.

        • te reo putake 15.1.1.1

          In a broad sense, you are correct, changeling. The Alliance was formed by several parties (incl. the Greens, Social Credit and the Anderton breakaway NewLabour). It was primarily an electoral vehicle. The numbers were with the Greens, though, as Matt McCarten once told me, the brains were with NewLabour.

          When the Greens decided to go it alone, some NewLabour folk went with them. I couldn’t quantify the numbers, however I’m confidant that they had a significant impact on the Green Party at that time. I stand to be corrected, but I think Keith Locke and Sue Bradford fell into that category.

          • Dennis Frank 15.1.1.1.1

            Yes partly true, however it happened after I left (mid-’95). I suspect those two didn’t jump the New Labour waka until the Alliance went down the gurgler.

            • McFlock 15.1.1.1.1.1

              Locke was elected as a Green in 1999. 1999 was the first election after the Greens left the Alliance in 1997.

              Sue Bradford did likewise.

              Your suspicion is incorrect.

              • Dennis Frank

                Yeah, amend that to “was going down the gurgler”. 18% in ’93. 10% in ’96: “by 1997 the Greens had decided to leave the Alliance. Soon after Locke left the Alliance and joined the Greens”. Perception that Anderton hadn’t a clue how to lead a group of parties had become sufficiently validated by the halving of public support.

                • McFlock

                  8% in 1999 without the Greens’ vote share.

                  Not gurgler territory. Sure, Anderton killed it, but it was the internal sabotage that did it rather than poor electoral performance.

                  • Dennis Frank

                    Interesting, sounds like you were involved. New Labour? I was just a sideline critic by then, saw the slide coming after the Alliance fell from the 28% it got in the Tamaki by-election, creating a genuine three-way split in the electorate.

                    It was a simple scenario: leverage that ratio nationwide. It was obvious that the only way to do that was genuine consensus and appropriate mutual goodwill between the parties. Instead, Anderton went into MMP with that traditional Labour stalinist style. What a moron…

                    • McFlock

                      There were a lot of problems with Anderton leading a larger party like it was just a small happy band that would follow him into the wasteland, but the main issue that brought the divisions to a head was rubberstamping the Afghanistan invasion without even asking the party.

                      Then he started pumping water into the boat before jumping ship at the last minute. Pisses me off to this day. We should have been in a place to push Lab4 farther left when it ran out of steam after 2005 or so.

                    • Dennis Frank

                      Okay, thanks for that insight. I recall one of the Nats coming out with the Albania crack & clearly the would-be dictator was busy creating that impression within as much as without!

                    • McFlock

                      A bit of a tragic character really.

                      The principle and confidence of vision that made him leave Lab4 basically made him difficult to work with as soon as the party grew large enough to have different points of view. Quite socially conservative (which didn’t go down well with younger members) and convinced that his way was the only way.

                      It was a great life lesson for me, both against hoping for saviour politicians but also in knowing when to back off and let your creation fly, otherwise you cripple it.

                      *I meant “push lab5 further left” in previous comment

                    • Dennis Frank

                      I very much endorse this: “knowing when to back off and let your creation fly”. What I had to do in ’95. If I’d stayed & fought the ethical fight, much bitterness would have ensued in the Greens. I had documentary proof of an attempt to subvert the democratic process & in my capacity as Convenor of the SOC I could have prosecuted the perpetrator & destroyed her political career. For spiritual reasons I decided on the zen way of dealing with the crisis.

                      I was actually a big fan of Anderton when he took his moral stand against Rogernomics, talked him up on that basis to any of the journos & reporters I worked with in the TVNZ newsroom (I’d openly informed everyone of my Greens membership already by then).

                    • McFlock

                      Except the Greens weren’t your creation, were they?

                      Besides, I’ve found that most moments people say a career will be wrecked, it’s at worst a storm in a teacup and there are no long term effects.

                    • Dennis Frank

                      Co-creation. I created the constitution & standing orders & subsidiary formal documents which transformed the Greens from the group of activists who got 7% in the 1990 election into a registered political party for MMP. Not just drafting on my computer, but organising the production of consensus to approve and adopt them at multiple meetings throughout the country. Office-holder just gives you power. Successful transformation as a result of using that power gives you a sense of ownership.

                      Sounds like you did something similar for the NLP but don’t want to explain what, so I’ll just leave it there.

  16. Jenny 16

    The Green Party held their annual conference in Palmerston North over the weekend. I’m told it was actually a pretty upbeat affair and the ructions around caucus support for NZ First’s ‘waka jumping’ bill were muted.

    That’s good, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it’s useful legislation. Anything that stops National from buying the loyalty of weak, selfish MP’s, subverting democracy at the same time, is to be welcomed…..

    Te Reo Putake – 7:20 pm, August 20, 2018

    Kia ora Te Reo Putake,

    I am afraid that I find myself on the other side of this debate to you.

    In that I heartily disagree with your position that the Waka Jumping Bill is good legislation. I don’t think the Waka Jumping Bill is a useful piece of legislation at all, in fact I think the WJB is undemocratic in principle and coercive in practice.

    It is my contention that the WJB is aimed directly at the Green Party, to counter their influence on other MPs in parliament under threat of dismissal.

    But I would like to know your thoughts, who do you think the WJB is aimed at?

    I didn’t know it, not until I read the Herald editorial yesterday, but New Zealand First MPs face a $300,000 fine if they dare take an independent line different to their Party. (ie Peters).

    $300,000 is a serious bit of wedge, even for a well paid MP. The purpose of this legislation is bring all MPs in parliament, down to the same low level of enforced slavish subservience as NZ First MPs. As the Herald Editorial writer says:

    Legislation to impose the same sort of rule on all MPs, minus the fine, is of most serious public concern. It offends our deepest political principles. We elect people to Parliament, not stooges.

    • I think it’s aimed squarely at NZ First MP’s, Jenny. Winston’s been bruised before when the so called ‘tight 5’ walked and more recently when Brendan Horan was ejected from the NZF caucus. The Alliance also had one of their MP’s switch to the Tories, which helped keep that government in power.

      My feeling on it this; if you can no longer support the party that got you into Parliament, leave Parliament.

      Regarding the $300k, I seriously doubt its enforceable and any attempt to use it would just end up in court. While the lawyers argue, there would be no practical effect on the defecting MP’s decision. They’d still be in Parliament, voting as they pleased.

      As an aside, I recall Muldoon used to get new Ministers to sign an undated resignation letter, which he held in his desk drawer in case they misbehaved.

      • veutoviper 16.1.1

        I am with you on that, TRP. I don’t think the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill is in any way, shape or form aimed at the Greens and is strictly Winston having been bitten before, seeking to ensure it doesn’t happen again – and IMHO also from his belief that it is the right thing to do. Re the $300k, I have heard several NZF MPs denying that they have signed such documents and I too doubt that this would be enforceable. And I also recall Muldoon’s desk drawer resignations. LOL.

        Going back to the waka jumping Bill, there has been a lot of discussion on the Green’s position on this in the last day or so, both here and elsewhere but most commentary seems to treat it as if it something off in the future – whereas the Bill is actually well down the track of its passage through the House. As I have done a detailed summary of the Bill and where it is at currently vis a vis its passage for other people/purposes, I am currently putting together a shorter summary for here as this obviously affects what the Greens could or could not do at this late stage – and what the outcomes would likely be if they were to change course. Hope to put it up later tonight or tomorrow morning.

        • Dennis Frank 16.1.1.1

          A while back I took a look at the composition of the select committee processing it (justice) and discovered it had no NZF or GP members. I was baffled by this. If you can include an explanation for this rather undemocratic lack of appropriate representation, it would be most helpful.

      • Jenny 16.1.2

        “My feeling on it this; if you can no longer support the party that got you into Parliament, leave Parliament.”
        te reo putake

        Hi TRP,

        Just a short query;

        Do you feel that Jim Anderton, when he could no longer support the party (Labour), that got him into parliament, should have had to leave parliament?

      • Ngungukai 16.1.3

        Yep I have heard that story also.

  17. Jimmy 17

    Who the hell advises these Green MP’s on what to say, firstly Meteria admitting benefit fraud (didn’t go down too well in polls) now Marama using the “C” word in public with kids present. Shaw just ends up looking weak and pathetic as he has to defend them. Do they get advise on these things?

  18. Tiger Mountain 18

    still prefer a Green party to be anti capitalist myself!

    but yes, to answer the post title question, the Greens are definitely needed in the MMP Parliament, despite their tendency to vacillate and do crazy things, like giving the Nats their parliamentary questions…

    with various ultra right and Trump/Brexit/CT/pedo type speakers in NZ lately attempting to rark things up, there could still be a disgruntled white bloke anti migrant type party formed, such motley crew being gifted a seat or two by the NZ National Party if they start to gain support

    • In Vino 18.1

      +1 Tiger. I think the panic premature: I suspect that the Greens were reduced to their essential rump at the last election, and we were over 5%.
      More likely to rise next election, given global climate events. Petty squabbles and
      reclaiming 4-letter pejoratives will cause bad publicity, etc, but the Green Rump voters will stay loyal because whatever the faults of the Greens, all the other parties are so much worse in so many ways. Others will see sense as Summer wildfires start to hit NZ on an Australian scale – quite likely in the next 2 years.

  19. Timeforacupoftea 19

    The Greens. Do We Need ’em?
    Written By: TE REO PUTAKE.

    Greens are great as long as there is plenty of mayonnaise to wash them down with.

    Do I win the prise ?

    • In Vino 19.1

      No, not with spelling like that. If we can prise you away from your silly joke (mayonnaise is a thick lubricant but it cannot be drunk to wash things down) you may wish to re-spell the word ‘prize’.

  20. Yes we do need the Greens.

    And yes they have made some bad mistakes. However, compared to the avarice and greed and Dirty Politics and deceit which we had to endure from National for the last nine years, – the Greens and the coalition are a complete breath of fresh air and are already making inroads in tackling the disgusting mess National left us in. And nine years of plunder cant be undone in a year.

    Still proud to have voted Green even though my home territory is more aligned with NZ First/ Labour.

    And lest any one who bears the name Left or Center Left forgets, – it was the Greens who had to accept NZ First and now both seem quite amiable in thinking of the greater good for the country and getting National out.

    Well done Greens !

  21. Michael 21

    The Greens will remain part of our political landscape and may even outlast Labour. One reason I say this is because the Greens have far more active members than Labour does – and more young members too. Many of them will get disillusioned with neoliberal politics and drift away (just as most active Labour members did after 1984 and again after 1998) but some will stay, if only because they think remaining will avert hard-right governments in future. I think they are wrong, and hard-right governments are the most probable sort for us. I may be wrong. I hope I am. But I’m fairly sure Labour won’t be part of any solution to the problem of hard-right politics.

  22. Ngungukai 22

    National need a RW Teal Party right leaning with a green twist ?

  23. CHCOff 23

    The Green Party lacks the independence it had with R. Donald.

    If the Green party is going to be constructive going forward, and not a passenger at best in that sense, then i’d say that Marama Davidson needs to look at the volunteer operators in the social sectors for going forward in how the Green Party is, & growing the vote, via the non-voting population which is symptomatic of why capitalism currently is not able to enhance it’s operating environment overall.

    The Greens need to be the party that the Alliance wasn’t essentially. And by growing the non-vote they will also grow the do vote, their way, along with being independent – without which i don’t put much stock in their ability to deliver much of significance to their lofty charter in real terms.

    What would suit them, in contributing to capitalism enhancing the environment, given what their general character of the spectrum is, in making the above connections with a dynamic voting base, would be the promotion of a distributist version of anarcho-syndicalism to those ends if they could be sensible about it…

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

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