The Greens’ election campaign launch: game on

Written By: - Date published: 6:05 am, July 24th, 2023 - 66 comments
Categories: election 2023, greens, james shaw - Tags:

New Zealand Green Party co-leader James Shaw knocked it out of the park with his speech to members at the party’s election campaign launch yesterday. Video below starts around 19m. Speech transcript is here.

It’s always worth listening to the Greens in their own words if you want to understand what they are doing, so I encourage people to watch or read the speech. Here are some of the important bits that jumped out at me.

More Ministers, inside Cabinet

Success in this election will be measured by how many Green Ministers the party has inside cabinet in a post-election government. This means a Labour-led government (no, the Greens won’t be considering supporting Nact into government, because a Nact government is antithetical to Green Party policy and direction).

Having Ministers inside cabinet matters. In the last two governments the Greens have been locked out of the power they needed to action progressive policies on climate transition and ending poverty via a GMI and wealth tax. They have had Ministers via their relationship with the Labour/NZ First government and then the Labour majority government, but those Ministers have been outside of cabinet. This means they are excluded from the core decision making processes the government uses, an oft ignored fact by those critical of the Greens for not doing enough.

More votes equals more Ministers which means faster and better change.

The wealth tax and ending poverty

The Greens are not toning down taxing the most wealthiest of New Zealanders in order to lift everyone out of poverty, they’re doubling down. This includes now openly criticising Labour election year policy,

The leader of the Labour Party ruling out any meaningful change to the tax system. 

“With many Kiwi households struggling, now is simply not the time for a big shake-up of our tax system,” he said.

We disagree. 

…

Let’s be clear: there has *never* been a better time to shake-up our tax system. 

Inequality is not an inevitability. 

It is a political decision – and different decisions can be made. 

Ruling out tax changes that would benefit millions is essentially saying to thousands of people who cannot afford to put food on the table, that’s it. 

That’s your lot. 

Well, we say, the time for half measures is over.

The time for political courage is now. 

End of story. 

Volunteers will determine the election

Yesterday’s speech was for the members and supporters to encourage them to step up and make the election happen for the Greens. There’s a lot here about the power of volunteers, and the importance in this tight election of every door knock and billboard.

No matter what it is, no matter who you are, or where you’re from, this election is about you. 

And only you have the power to make a difference. 

So use it.

We will win this election not because we’ve got millions in the bank, but because we have the most powerful tool any campaign has ever had: 

You. 

The cross benches option

Which brings me to the final, and most exciting point. I was cheering when Shaw said this,

The Green Party has never been interested in power for its own sake. We are – and have always been – focused on what you do with it. 

Which is why no party who wants to work with us after 14th October should ever take our support for granted. 

Whatever hand we are dealt after this election, New Zealanders should be in no doubt that we will make use of every inch of it. 

If that means more Green Ministers in Cabinet, or sitting on the cross benches and fighting on every piece of legislation, we will use our power in the most effective way we can to get the change we so desperately need.  

You probably have to watch the speech to get the full force of that, and understand the process it’s taken to get here and why the Greens are choosing this election to play their final card,

I believe, with every fibre of my being, that we will only achieve the urgent change that our communities need right now, when there are more Green Ministers, sitting around the Cabinet table. 

But even more than that, I know that we cannot afford another term of little steps and half-measures.

The way I see it, if political leaders are not willing to take difficult decisions on behalf of the people of the country they purport to lead, why be in politics at all?

This is a significant shift from the Greens’ long held position of working co-operatively and proactively on government formation rather using the balance of power that small parties can have within the MMP structure. For many years the Greens have courted Labour to establish and maintain a strong working relationship in government formation (remember 2016 and Andrew Little speaking at the Greens AGM as part of the Green Party’s Our Plan to Change the Government?).

Their commitment has been to maintaining that relationship because of the high value placed on consensus within the party and how this enhances democracy. It outweighs the downsides like the risk for smaller parties of being subsumed, or blamed for the larger party’s policy failures (think climate). This has by and large worked in the Greens’ favour and given them time to establish Ministerial experience and make changes within the related government departments.

The shift now to not simply considering the cross benches but actively campaigning on that option, can only be understood in the context of the true nature of the climate and ecology crises, including the absolute urgency of acting now. Not in three or six years, but now. Thus the party’s campaign slogan is “The Time is Now”. Most people are still not acting as if the climate crisis is that urgent, but this is exactly what needs to happen: acting as if we have no time to lose. Finally we have a party in parliament who is willing to lead on this not with rhetoric but action.

People can join the volunteer team (you don’t have to be a member), or donate to the Green Party.

66 comments on “The Greens’ election campaign launch: game on ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Tony Veitch 1
    24 July 2023 at 7:51 am

    Go the Greens!

  2. Ad 2
    24 July 2023 at 7:55 am

    Certainly looking attractive compared to my home party.

  3. Roy Cartland 3
    24 July 2023 at 8:14 am

    Unless you're TDB, this is a great launch. I like how he suggests we take personalities and crap out of it and look at, I dunno, the policies maybe?

  4. Dennis Frank 4
    24 July 2023 at 8:19 am

    Too soon to draw any conclusions about the timing – as far as I know, they still haven't finished deciding their candidate rankings. So the time is now to launch, but the ship hasn't yet been fully constructed.

    Just how sensible this is remains to be seen. Did they even notify the public when their list would be finalised?? You know, as if the electorate ought to take them seriously.

    Hoopla is all very well but doesn't really cut the mustard. They have to play it how their internal process constrains them to do, fair enough. I'll reserve judgment till I see how high they rate Abel, the environmentalist. And how many pc-uttering sloganeering virtue signallers get put above him. Question of sham vs substance…

    • weka 4.1
      24 July 2023 at 8:45 am

      The list was announced in May. Abel is at 9. My take on it,

      I'm pretty happy with that. Seven existing MPs, and the new people coming in have a strong environmental focus to redress the imbalance to social justice that was happening before.

      The Greens currently have enough vote for 10 MPs (only 9 in parliament currently because Kerekere decided to stay on as an independent, thus dropping the GP representation). Would be great to see Efeso Collins and Scott Willis coming in at the least.

      Lots of good experience and perspective to vote for here.

      https://thestandard.org.nz/green-party-list-announced-2/#comment-1950564

      • Dennis Frank 4.1.1
        24 July 2023 at 10:00 am

        Oh, somehow I must have missed it! Since Kerekere isn't there, looks like you must be right about that: https://www.greens.org.nz/2023_candidates

        After the furore they said they'd go back to members to modify the list & I never saw the media report the result of that process.

        I'm ok with Efeso @ #11. Glad also to see another environmentalist at #6, making her likely to get in…

        • weka 4.1.1.1
          24 July 2023 at 10:47 am

          The Standard is often a good source. Use the search box, and search posts, then comments.

  5. SPC 5
    24 July 2023 at 9:07 am

    It's an unsurprising response to the Labour's own chosen course to reassure the centre that they will determine the nature of any government they lead.

    It basically means continuance of Labour in office would be as a minority government with confidence and supply from Greens and TPM.

    They would see this as making them more attractive to the centre than NACT.

    In practice Labour would have to make one off deals with Greens (and TPM) each year (budget programme), rather than a coalition deal for the three year period. Be constantly on notice, as to making progress, than just staying in power.

    • weka 5.1
      24 July 2023 at 9:14 am

      It also means the Greens would be free to say whatever they like on all Labour policy.

      • Michael P 5.1.1
        25 July 2023 at 11:26 am

        Yes but under a confidence and supply agreement they have to ensure the government is stable so can't really say they oppose a policy and then vote for it so that leaves them with saying things like "we support this policy but think it should go further" and things like that. They can't really oppose the government without bringing it down

        So is that a better position for the Greens than having MP's in cabinet and possible policy or parts of policy implemented as part of a coalition government? Do they prefer a Labour led government or a Nat / ACT government because if they don't support Labour then NAT / ACT will be in government.

  6. MickeyBoyle 6
    24 July 2023 at 12:39 pm

    How can the Greens keep talking about wealth taxes when Chris Hipkins has ruled this out whilst he is PM?

    Are they planning to be able to form a government without Labour?

    Or are they planning for Labour to win the election and then Hipkins stands down?

    It's all very well saying you are for something, but if you have zero chance of delivering it, shouldn't you be honest with voters?

    • SPC 6.1
      24 July 2023 at 12:47 pm

      It's about being available as a vehicle for those who support wealth taxes, Labour can expect pressure on them to reduce inequality and increase tax revenues by other means.

    • Dennis Frank 6.2
      24 July 2023 at 12:49 pm

      My take, on the basis of a couple of 5-yr stints as a member, is that they feel it is essential to signal the virtue of the wealth tax. I have no personal objection to that.

      Think of it as moral guidance: a traditional strand of political influence that stretches back through history & has biological roots in prehistory. Then there's also a practical benefit: they use it as a strategy to maximise their party vote.

      The thing then kicks in when the aftermath of a close election produces a feasible Labour-led govt scenario. They use it as leverage to shift Labour: it works in ratio to TMP and/or NZF providing Labour with an alternative option to the Greens.

    • UncookedSelachimorpha 6.3
      24 July 2023 at 1:37 pm

      Very unlikely, but if Greens+TPM got combined vote greater than Labour, you could get a G/TPM/L government without Labour leading it, I suppose.

    • weka 6.4
      24 July 2023 at 1:55 pm

      If Labour don't have a majority after the election (extremely unlikely they will), how will they form government without the Greens?

      Small parties always campaign on what they want to have happen.

    • Ad 6.5
      24 July 2023 at 7:41 pm

      Because it's the right thing to do.

  7. That_guy 7
    24 July 2023 at 12:56 pm

    Greens are saying the right thing on the clima-eco-apocaypt-omnishambles. Tick.

    Greens understand that when you are living in poverty then your priorities are to not be poor, and you can't expect anyone to change those priorities unless the situation changes. Tick.

    Nobody else seems to want to tax me. Tick.

    Guess it's the Greens. I see this as a low turnout election though.

  8. Corey 8
    24 July 2023 at 2:54 pm

    A lot of people don't seem to understand mmp 27 years after it was implemented and still seem to think the only way a party can have influence is being kingmaker.

    If Labour and the Greens can pull off a miracle and form a minority or majority coalition, the greens will have bottom lines and both will have to swallow dead rats and come up with a coalition agreement.

    If Labour offers them something like 2020, where the greens had no sway, the greens can threaten to sit in the cross benches making governing a literal nightmare for labour.

    No party will get everything they want but if Labour needs the greens, the greens will force labour to the left on a bunch of issues.

    And if Labour needs the greens and Maori party, both parties will be pushing Labour to the left.

    • weka 8.1
      24 July 2023 at 3:02 pm

      This.

      It will be interesting to see how Labour manage a situation like that. eg if they have to reverse their position of no wealth tax.

      • MickeyBoyle 8.1.1
        25 July 2023 at 11:33 am

        Labour won't be reversing their position on a wealth tax whilst Hipkins is PM.

        He has ruled it out. To reverse that would make his position untenable, the media and public would hammer him.

        It's not happening, wake up to reality.

        • weka 8.1.1.1
          25 July 2023 at 11:49 am

          how will Labour form government without the Greens?

          • Belladonna 8.1.1.1.1
            25 July 2023 at 11:58 am

            Cross benches? Shaw has already strongly indicated that this would be a preferred option – without substantial change in tax policy from Labour.

            Leaving Labour as a minority government, needing to negotiate legislation piece-by-piece with TPM and GP.

            That scenario is more likely to maintain the status quo of current legislation (since Labour has to get 2 party approval), than to initiate major change.

            • weka 8.1.1.1.1.1
              25 July 2023 at 12:39 pm

              yes, I know, I wrote the post about it. MB is implying that the Greens don't have much leverage. I'm pointing out that it's extremely likely that the only way Labour get to be government again is by the grace of the Greens. And the Greens have now changed their negotiation position.

        • That_guy 8.1.1.2
          25 July 2023 at 12:14 pm

          Easy recipe: add one walloping to Labour so that Hipkins is rolled. A dash of good results to the parties and people (eg Parker, TPM, Greens) who are in favour of a wealth tax. Stew for 3 years , and then serve.

          • weka 8.1.1.2.1
            25 July 2023 at 12:40 pm

            do you mean Labour out of govt for a term? Or Hipkins being rolled before or after the election?

            • Phillip ure 8.1.1.2.1.1
              25 July 2023 at 12:46 pm

              I think the possibility exists for hipkins to be rolled post election/during coalition negotiations…if grns/tmp hold the keys to a third term..

              And Parker is the obvious (if considering wealth tax) successor .

              • That_guy …
                25 July 2023 at 4:36 pm

                I think Labour will be out of government for a term, yes, and as a result Hipkins will be rolled if that loss can be clearly traced to his craven position on tax.

                • Belladonna …
                  25 July 2023 at 4:47 pm

                  I would say that if Labour loses the election, Hipkins will be rolled.

                  He was the compromise candidate to draw Labour back to the centre in order to win the election. If he fails to do this, then there is no need for compromise, and he's out.

                  More interestingly, what will happen if Labour wins, and is able to form a government with the Greens – and TPM support?

                  Will Hipkins remain? Or will he be rolled by the left of the party (who have a more natural alliance with the above? If so – who's the next leader? Wood had a stab earlier this year – but has comprehensively ruled himself out, at least this year. Parker has close to zero charisma – but that doesn't matter so much after the election. He's ruled himself out of contention previously – but could be in line for the Treasury for a more hard-left PM.

                • Drowsy M. Kram …
                  25 July 2023 at 5:31 pm

                  I would say that if National loses the election, Luxon will be rolled.

                  He's an inexperienced MP, anointed by Key and elected leader of the opposition Nat party a little over a year after Collins (now National’s spokesperson on Science Innovation and Technology, Foreign Direct Investment) led her party to a big election defeat (didn't ACT do well).

                  Christopher Luxon voted new National Party leader as Simon Bridges withdraws [30 November 2021]

                  It followed Judith Collins' tumultuous exit as leader last week, after she summarily demoted Bridges last week.

                  Shellshocked, MPs went into a hastily called caucus the next morning and cast a vote of no confidence in her. Deputy Shane Reti became interim leader and the vote for leader was set down for today.

                  Expectations are high – if Luxon fails to win, he's out (imho).

                  So who would be National's next leader? Collins would be a disaster, but that's never stopped her. Willis doesn't own as many properties as Luxon, and it seems unlikely that Nat voters could get behind another woman, particularly with the memory of Collins still relatively fresh.

                  National Party leader Chris Luxon’s women drought – Luxon sets 50% women goal but men got most National’s winnable seats s [24 June 2023]

                  Perhaps Reti, Doocey, or S. Brown II (Minister for Potholes in waiting)?

                  Mitchell could be the hard right dark horse – I can't take Bishflap seriously.

                  https://www.national.org.nz/team

                  • Belladonna …
                    25 July 2023 at 6:09 pm

                    I agree that Luxon is on thin ice if National loses. Although he's certainly brought the polling up to the point where National is a serious contender (contrast the polls immediately pre-Luxon and now).

                    But, I'd say he's unlikely to be on equally thin ice if National wins.

                    Collins has had her shot. And failed badly. There is little, if any chance that she'd be re-appointed.

                    I suspect you might be looking at the senior women MPs. Willis or Stanford. [Assuming this was actually a serious question]. Remembering that National had the first NZ female PM, Jenny Shipley (much to Helen Clark's fury).

    • Bearded Git 8.2
      24 July 2023 at 9:59 pm

      Corey-they have something similar to MMP in Spain (not quite the same or as good).

      But people don't understand MMP there either. The western media today was full of the view that "Partido Popular have won". [PP=the Nats here] This is rubbish.

      In fact, while PP have won the most seats, nobody has yet "won". Under MMP and similar systems the "winner" is the party that can put together a coalition that can rule-a government.

      There are lots of small but mostly left wing parties who may yet reelect Pedro Sanchez (PSOE=Labour) by supporting him in coalition to the magic number of 176 seats.

      • Res Publica 8.2.1
        25 July 2023 at 1:48 pm

        [PP=the Nats here]

        PP is less like the Nats and probably closer to NZ First.

        It was initially born out of the rump of the old Falangist party and was led by a (cautiously) reformist former senior Francoist. Then absorbed a bunch of smaller super reactionary and/or christian democrat parties.

        • Bearded Git 8.2.1.1
          25 July 2023 at 3:12 pm

          ah ok, that is interesting. More conservative and further to the Right than the Nats then. Though I guess all parties evolve over time.

          Thanks for that res.

          BTW, in the election just held the new left-wing Sumar grouping that includes Podemos needed around 100,000 votes for each of its parliamentary seats while PP needed only 58,000. Just to show how far from true MMP the system is.

    • Michael P 8.3
      25 July 2023 at 11:43 am

      "If Labour offers them something like 2020, where the greens had no sway, the greens can threaten to sit in the cross benches making governing a literal nightmare for labour."

      If Labor offers them something like 2020, where the greens had no sway, the greens can threaten to sit in the cross benches and allow NAT / ACT to form a minority coalition…"

      If it's a choice between Labor with Greens support or NAT / ACT, which would the Green party prefer? I'm not sure that the Green Party allowing NAT / ACT into office would gain them any supporters.

      That's one of the problems with our MMP system. Although it is obviously better than FPP in terms of democracy and having a wider range of representation, it is still essentially FPP it's just that at the moment it's 2 on 2 instead of 1 on 1.

      • Belladonna 8.3.1
        25 July 2023 at 4:54 pm

        That's one of the problems with our MMP system. Although it is obviously better than FPP in terms of democracy and having a wider range of representation, it is still essentially FPP it's just that at the moment it's 2 on 2 instead of 1 on 1.

        However, that hasn't been historically true in the past (even the recent past)

        This election is an anomaly in that there isn't a centrist party – which can go either right or left. NZF and UF both fulfilled that role since MMP was established in NZ.

        ATM, even if Winston manages to resurrect NZF – it won't be as a centrist party. More of a plague on all your houses one – drawing nutters from all corners of the political spectrum. (My sarcastic interpretation based on the media coverage of the conference)

        • Dennis Frank 8.3.1.1
          25 July 2023 at 7:25 pm

          Good insight. I've a hunch NZF could return, but not on current form. Rabbit still in hat. That 12% undecided portion of the electorate await something substantial from all the various pretenders. Underwhelming in all directions.

  9. BAW 9
    24 July 2023 at 4:01 pm

    Nat voter here.

    Act and the Greens have the same problem – they have only one party they can work with.

    You can sit on the cross benches – but that does mean that Labour can always talk to the Nats in exchange for getting righty stuff through.

    A wealth tax creates a flag for grumpy people to rally around and attack. But if you tinker with the system – then you have a wealth tax in all but name. Perhaps

    • The sale of any share has capital gains tax.
    • Stamp duty increase.
    • Debt interest is not tax deducutable
    • The sale of any house has capital gains tax.
    • Development levies are charged right away when land is rezoned.

    Oh and Lichtenstein (tax haven) has a wealth tax.

    • weka 9.1
      24 July 2023 at 4:35 pm

      A wealth tax creates a flag for grumpy people to rally around and attack. But if you tinker with the system – then you have a wealth tax in all but name. Perhaps

      • The sale of any share has capital gains tax.
      • Stamp duty increase.
      • Debt interest is not tax deducutable
      • The sale of any house has capital gains tax.
      • Development levies are charged right away when land is rezoned.

      What is the purpose of this kind of taxation?

      • SPC 9.1.1
        24 July 2023 at 9:43 pm

        He is suggesting incremental ways to make changes in lieu of a CGT (all but us in the OECD), gift duties/estate tax (2/3rd of the OECD) or a wealth tax.

        At the moment we have the debt interest not being being deductible against rent income and the bright-line test on investment property up to 10 years (which is far better than a CGT on family homes).

        He is suggesting stamp duties (at time of sale – I'd zero rate for all but investors buying up existing property)

        and development levies when land is rezoned for this (a bit aggressive, that's of a design to force people to pay up levies, or sell to developers). The Oz approach of a tax on vacant land in such areas would be better (prevents land banking in these areas) and maybe a levy when applying for consent to develop (to assist councils with their costs – as to infrastructure – more capacity for water removal etc).

        Of course the most obvious alternative to a wealth tax is not a CGT on the family home sales, but an estate tax (with prior gift duties) (where most family homes are below the exemption level),

        A tax on CG on shares, would be best applied where someone has a certain amount of wealth in shares, with most peoples level of ownership being exempt. Thus be a form of wealth tax on share ownership (especially if made based on unrealised gain rather than sales – CGT form)

        • weka 9.1.1.1
          24 July 2023 at 10:13 pm

          I was asking what the purpose was. The Greens' WT is to fund a GMI etc.

          • SPC 9.1.1.1.1
            24 July 2023 at 10:48 pm

            Does it need an allocation purpose? The bright-line test money had none, nor does the extra tax of rent income from the loss of mortgage cost deductability.

            (then again a CGT on the family home would make Labour un-electable, thus some sort of purpose to a National party voter)(and placing levies on family home owners, if their suburb is designated for development, would also be seen as onerous).

            • weka 9.1.1.1.1.1
              24 July 2023 at 11:16 pm

              well sure, government can tinker and use WTs revenue gathering for general purposes.

              The Greens' WT policy exists to end poverty. That's a different thing and imo can't be done with tinkering.

              • SPC …
                24 July 2023 at 11:42 pm

                Sure, only the scale enables real change.

                • weka …
                  25 July 2023 at 10:22 am

                  the scale, but also the design. A whole systems approach that makes fundamental changes vs tinkering around a neoliberal BAU system.

              • Michael P …
                25 July 2023 at 11:11 am

                It can't be done with tinkering but it can't be done even less in opposition.

                If the Green Party decides to sit on the cross benches then they would have to have a confidence and supply agreement with Labour else Labour couldn't form a minority government and that could open the door for a National Party / ACT minority coalition or even a National minority Government. (Assuming Labour get more MP's than National. )

                That's the thing with our MMP system and due to the fact that the Greens won't ever enter a coalition with National and ACT won't ever enter a coalition with Labor, it is essentially still just FPP, the Greens being the left wing of the Labour Party and ACT being the right wing of the National Party.

                The Greens I'm assuming would prefer a Labour led government to a Nat / Act govt so they have to either form a majority / minority coalition government with Labour or a confidence and supply agreement with a minority Labour government. The alternative is a National / ACT government which I'm assuming would be the Green Party and their supporters least favorable option?

                Assuming that the Green Party will never, certainly not in the short term, get more mp's elected than either the National or Labour governments, then a coalition agreement is more likely to give progress in their policy direction and a minority coalition will most likely give them more positions inside cabinet than what their share of the vote might suggest.

                I don't see how sitting in opposition with a confidence and supply agreement will ever get more Green Party policy through than what they can negotiate in a coalition agreement.

    • weka 9.2
      24 July 2023 at 4:38 pm

      You can sit on the cross benches – but that does mean that Labour can always talk to the Nats in exchange for getting righty stuff through.

      And the Greens can point that out every time, alongside presenting a more progressive policy/position, including in 2026. It's about shifting the Overton Window, presenting alternative narratives, and being free to talk about climate and poverty.

    • Phillip ure 9.3
      25 July 2023 at 12:50 pm

      @ baw…

      As a nat voter..do you think there are many of your ilk..who are soft nat voters ..

      Do you think many of them are scared of act…and will flee national/ vote to avert that possibility..?

    • foreign waka 9.4
      26 July 2023 at 4:04 pm

      Hi BAW Perhaps, and only perhaps, if all those having the means to influence the tax laws would front up with honesty about the white elephant in the room, the nation can move on. It is about equality in the eyes of he tax laws, I mean equality because this is a basis of all laws. I refer to tax exemptions. No one trading in anything and registering income and/or profit should fall under that insidious creeping in of favouritism. Right now this is not the case and the middle and low income earners have to shoulder the burden of maintaining an ever increasing expenditure of providing the basics. The country need investment, how about having everybody paying their share.

  10. Thinker 10
    25 July 2023 at 7:40 am

    Except that if you have seats at the Cabinet Table aren't you bound to accept and not challenge the consensus? Aren't they the rules?

    When Marilyn Waring crossed the floor, she did so as an individual, but here we are talking about a party that is wanting to be part of government decision making and have the right to oppose it at the same time.

    The only two ways I can see that happening are:

    1. If they agree to be a partner for confidence and supply, with everything else supported or not on a case-by-case basis, but they would need to be outside Cabinet.

    2. If they go into a coalition government, but with the threat that they will tear up the coalition agreement and send the government into chaos at their choosing, which won't endear itself to Labour (natural partner) and certainly won't endear itself to any not-natural partners.

    I don't think it has been well thought-out.

    • weka 10.1
      25 July 2023 at 10:31 am

      but here we are talking about a party that is wanting to be part of government decision making and have the right to oppose it at the same time.

      Depends on what you mean by the party. My reading of Shaw's speech is that it's either this or that, not both. He deeply believes that having a decent number of Ministers within Cabinet is the best way to effect change. However members have been pushing and pointing out that that's not what is happening and that the party might be better off on the cross benches rather than having such limits on power/action.

      For instance, atm, the Minister for Climate sits outside of Cabinet, and is restricted to an extent in what he can say about Labour climate policy or how cabinet are restraining good climate action. Green MPs without a ministerial portfolio are free to speak on GP policy and criticise Labour but there are informal limits on that I think because of the needs to maintain good working relationships.

      How much of that is in the agreement and how much is Shaw/MP's commitment to relationship I don't know. But there is no doubt that Shaw and the party disagree with Labour's positions on climate and is unable to openly criticise that more than he does.

      If the Greens got 15 MPs after the election and the possibility of 5 Ministers, inside cabinet, and they got some decent movement on core climate and poverty/tax policies, then it's worth not being able to openly criticise Labour.

      If they get 10 MPs, and the climate portfolio outside of cabinet, and Labour refusing to move on climate and the WT, they may be better off outside of government altogether, and Labour having to talk to them for every piece of legislation they want to pass. I don't think we've had that kind of government arrangement before and I'm not sure how it would work. I assume it means no confidence and supply, but then would the government even be able to form?

      With the new environmentally focused candidates, the ability to speak strongly on climate alone is gold.

      • weka 10.1.1
        25 July 2023 at 10:32 am

        and again, this has to be understood in the context of how urgent the climate crisis is. It's in everything now.

    • Res Publica 10.2
      25 July 2023 at 1:52 pm

      Except that if you have seats at the Cabinet Table aren't you bound to accept and not challenge the consensus? Aren't they the rules?

      The "rules" (such as they are) are quite flexible. And can vary between governments depending on the arrangements at the time.

      For example, when Winston Peters was Minister for Foreign Affairs, NZ First was only bound by the principle of collective cabinet responsibility when it came to his portfolio. Everything else was fair game.

  11. James Simpson 11
    25 July 2023 at 10:58 am

    Chiipy's conservatism is what scares me.

    I think it is critically important that the party's support increases to 15%+. It will be very difficult to demand more than the two ministerial positions that they currently have if support stays around where it is now.

    Hipkins has shown himself to be conservative and centrist, and is unlikely to entertain the "tail wagging the dog". That's why every single party vote Green is so important in this election

  12. Michael P 12
    25 July 2023 at 11:52 am

    "The shift now to not simply considering the cross benches but actively campaigning on that option"

    How does that marry up with this quote from Shaw

    "I'm not even contemplating the idea that we won't get into government after October"

    If he's not even contemplating not being in government then he's hardly actively campaigning on being in opposition. (Or do you mean actively campaigning on considering the cross benches rather than active campaigning on being on the cross benches)

    https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/07/election-2023-greens-send-warning-shot-at-labour-at-campaign-launch.html

    If the Green party has gained any votes from Labour voters and is talking about cross benches then it is far more likely to lose those voters back to Labour in my opinion.

  13. Chris 13
    25 July 2023 at 1:48 pm

    Parker, Robertson and a few of their mates need to join the Greens.

  14. tWiggle 14
    26 July 2023 at 10:09 am

    Te Karere reports on Batchelor's latest meeting.

    After a protester was manhandled and dragged out of a meeting in PN the other day, now Batchelor also manhandled a person in a Hawkes Bay meeting who pulled out his projector plug and accused him of hate speech against their community. The police were in the meeting and escorted them out. Is this assault by Batchelor?

    BigHairyNews have an interesting discussion between 33-48 min on freedom of expression and counter-protest.

    We need some guidance from the PM on the questions rsised by BHN.