The Listener has spoken
Opinion about the Green Party’s role in the political scheme of things and its recent electoral efforts are becoming key themes in the media’s post-election analysis. Following on from Daniel Batten in the Herald and Chris Trotter in The Independent, Gordon Campbell has had a go in Endangered Greens, the editorial of this week’s Listener.
As a leader piece in arguably the most-read (tho’ not most red 
) ‘left’ publication in the country, this will be the viewpoint most likely to be seen by the Greens’ electoral target market.
Like Trotter, Campbell wears the hat of a ‘left’ commentator putting forward the broader left’s judgement on its Green subset’s efforts:
Chances are, capitalism will be robust enough to survive the Greens, the current bogeyman of our chambers of commerce – just as the economy survived earlier figures of dread, such as Jim Anderton and Winston Peters. As a horror movie, the Greens are strictly PG13.
He goes on to echo Trotter’s criticism of the recent effort:
They can hardly have run a more irrelevant election campaign.
and further:
Bereft of a mobilising issue such as genetic modification and outbid by Labour on student loans, the Greens ending up sailing perilously close to political extinction.
In comparing the German experience:
Now, former leader Joschka Fischer has been bidding to get the Greens into the budding radical right-wing regime being fashioned by Merkel. For any Green here who regards direct participation in government as a lifeline, the odyssey of the Greens in Germany makes sobering reading.
Campbell joins Trotter in arguing that the Green Party will gain and maintain support by being radical, and directly disagrees with Batten’s argument that ‘greenism’ is an essentially a mainstream value that the Green Party is disenfranchasing with its broadly ‘left’ policy platform. This is, of course, a philosophical and / or tactical debate that happens within Green Parties all over the world.
Where Campbell does offer some new food for public thought, and varies from Trotter, is when he takes aims at the Greens’ internal workings:
If the Green MPs were on a supermarket shelf, you would be studying their “use by” dates very closely indeed, since their line-up is virtually identical to what it was in 1999. The Greens’ caucus is nearly 53 years old on average, and has just lost Nandor Tanczos, its main youth emblem and drawcard. Fresh talent may be waiting in the wings, such as Russell Norman. Yet the talent will always struggle to make it into the parliamentary arena without big changes occurring in how the Greens compile their party list – which does few favours to its more urban and more sophisticated candidates, and which has promoted the likes of Mike Ward in the past.
The Party’s list building process is fully democratic, unlike most, and as such is a manifestation of the Charter principle of appropriate decisionmaking. This concept is one that marks the Greens out from the broader left, including Labour, in that the ultimate decision rests with the grassroots, who in turn are not expected to put aside their critical reasoning in the interests of collective solidarity.
But nevertheless, Campbell’s point needs to be seriously considered by the party. Like a local body election, there is a danger in a voting process in which most of the enfranchaised take only a passing interest, in that sitting MPs will always have an advantage over new blood through the simple fact of name recognition.
If the caucus and leadership is to be renewed in a party that cannot guarantee more than six to ten candidates getting into Parliament, the wider membership needs to become far more familiar with the ‘next twenty’. Otherwise a top-down strategic overview may have to be built into the list-ranking system. Such a move may be seen by some as compromising a key Green principle, but could become essential.
I’d be interested to hear what you all think on this, particularly those who are Green Party members.
October 10th, 2005 at 2:29 pm
Our policies need to be a reflection of our core principles. In the current system, this requires us to be “left” wing. Does this nessasarily have to be so?
Both left and right believe that its wrong to commit murder.
Do both believe that its wrong to poison people?
What constitutes poisoning a person?
Can you legislate a form of social responsibility without a social welfare system?
I think that we greens need more tangible election policies. The solar panels are a great one. What about instead of “more busses” something like if you live in auckland, there will be a bus passing your nearest stop every 15 mins.
Something that people can see is easily related to them?
October 10th, 2005 at 2:31 pm
I heard that the listener is now owned by rupert murdoch, is this true??
October 10th, 2005 at 2:47 pm
Uh, as I just said elsewhere:
If your field is too big, then name recognition trumps everything else, and it’s very hard to beat the name recognition of an MP.
If you do a 2-ballot system: once to pick the top 15, once to order them, then those who are not in the golden ranks of the sitting MPs get more of a chance to be noticed and considered carefully. The problem is that the whole process has to happen fairly quickly.
October 10th, 2005 at 2:58 pm
Because ranking was such an interesting issue this time, next time around you might also get more interested onlookers like me getting off their arse and joining the party, so that we can take part in the ballot.
October 10th, 2005 at 3:03 pm
I’m wondering if those citing irrelevance now on the basis of generalism in the campaign are those same critics who accused the party of irrelevance in the last term because they were a single issue party? They can’t have it both ways!
I for one voted Labour for the seat and Green for the party - and I know plenty others who did the same. Despite this strategic voting, the Greens lost fewer votes than any other smaller party. Along with the post-election polling showing a rebound in Green party support the situation is clear; it wasn’t fear of the Greens or a lack of a mobilising issue that hurt the Greens count, it was the Blue Scourge.
In fact, the Greens have needed to be more convincing across the policy spectrum, and have had to shed their single-issue image in order to increase their support base. The fact that support dropped on election day is, though not irrelevant, certainly incidental to their campaign and policy portfolio.
I’m sure there are plenty of concerned voters out there who will vote for green policies, in the right climate: a climate where the vote counts, and where they can be proud of choosing a party with convincing and sensible policies across the board. In otherwords, a Green party ready for government. Our new supporters don’t want to be a wipping boy for what is perceived to be a single-issue bogey-man.
October 10th, 2005 at 3:03 pm
sorry to comment so much, but the problem’s caught my mind…
Another option is to take the problem of fresh views explicitly: reserve list ranking 3 for the top polling candidate who has never been an MP.
October 10th, 2005 at 3:34 pm
No, I wouldn’t change the list-ranking mechanism, but I would make more of an effort to get more young people to join the party and take part in the list ranking. People who had been financial members for less than 6 months were banned from voting this time around, which has surely got to mean more old fogies and less young people voting. I would make this qualifying period shorter, perhaps only a month.
Some campus green groups have mentioned that many students who come along to campus greens meetings don’t join the party because they can’t afford it, (even though it is only $15), perhaps some more wealthy (younger) members could make donations so committed active 20 year olds could get a “bursary” or “sponsorship” to join the Party.
October 10th, 2005 at 4:00 pm
frog..you said..”..The Party’s list building process is fully democratic, unlike most…”
excuse me..how long have you been around..?….are provinces blockvoting not skewing the democratic process..?
this area is screaming out for reform…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 10th, 2005 at 4:14 pm
stuey is right in that the six month restriction needs to change..and one month sounds about right..
and a $5 unwaged membership….
and auckland in particular needs to attend to its’ party organisation….
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 10th, 2005 at 4:25 pm
Wizban:
Absolute ballocks. The Listener is owned by APN. Filthy foreign media barron Tony O’Reilly has a 25% holding in APN’s parent company Independent News & Media. I don’t think Rupert Murdoch knows, let alone much cares, that New Zealand exists since News Corp sold INL to Fairfax.
October 10th, 2005 at 4:31 pm
to phil u.
this frog has been around a while…
I agree completely that provinces block voting skews the democratic process. But then, coordinated block voting by geographically scattered but socially or ideologically aligned networks also isn’t helpful. A few months back a guide to ‘ethical voting’ was circulated in the party, it didn’t seem to lead to any radically different outcomes.
In the initial post, I was referring to other political parties, where the list is created directly by delegates, whereas in the Greens the delegated process only creates the draft list as a guide, which the membership are welcome to ignore if they wish.
Agree with your second comment, the $15 membership fee is the number one reason for the reduction in youth membership.
October 10th, 2005 at 6:06 pm
Personally, I think that Campbell was way off the mark. It was a tough election and the Greens did better than the other minors. I’m inclined to believe that had they done anything that made it look like they wouldn’t go into coalition with Labour, they would have lost a whole heap of votes to the “we have to keep National out camp”, my own included.
October 10th, 2005 at 6:10 pm
so i guess the only way to counter that is to play the game…get that unwaged membership fee down..and recruit..recruit..recruit..(we’ll get nandor at number one..)
and set up a dedicated newsletter/forum ? (email only)….
and lets have some fundraising/networking/party building gigs..eh..?
let’s have some fun with this green thing…
it’s all far too grim..
let’s make the monthly meetings something to look forward to..discussion/debate/guest speakers..snacks/drinks…lets kick some life into this moribund entity…not just slip back into the coma state of the last three years..
(most of the aformentioned is directed at auckland..though i’m sure other branchs could do with a shot of energy..
and here in auckland we have no excuse not to do this…..and make a success of it…look at our cachement size…
(sigh)..i guess i’d better go and join the green party again…..there’s things to be said and stuff that needs doing…
the first one being to get that membership fee down…
(if anyone else out there would like to join the auckland greens..and help with this..please do…)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 10th, 2005 at 6:20 pm
btw terence..i wasn’t advocating a spurning of labour.
.i was talking about the failure to get the green messages across..those of our good ideas/policies/people…(where were all the other mps during the election campaign..?..surely one of our strengths is the skills of our mps……why was this asset not used..why was there this bullshit presidential style campaign around rod and jeanette…..a visitor would assume there were two green mps only…
and of course the failure to get the crucial ‘party vote green message’ across…
we can’t just ignore the fact these failures happened..and do them again in three years..?..no thank you…
and if the tree needs to be shaken to do this..so be it…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 10th, 2005 at 6:59 pm
hey phil, interested as to why you think there was a presidential style campaign around rod and jeanette, since there was plenty of action by the other MPs - maybe it wasn’t reported, but that’s not our fault. The only evidence in your favour I can think of, is that the co-leaders pictures appeared in the top left of the website, and then again in the candidates rollover in the Flash menu (personally I would have had a wall of candidate thumbnails, say 30). Do you have any other evidence to support your thesis?
For example, lets look at the number of audio blogs by each MP …
Rod - 10
Jeanette - 5
Sue B - 5
Metiria - 4
Nandor - 3
Mike - 2
Sue K - 2
Keith - 2
Or the press releases by each MP (1st Aug to 17th Sept)
Jeanette - 41
Rod - 28
Sue B - 15
Sue K - 14
Nandor - 9
Metiria - 8
Keith - 8
Mike - 4
Ha ha, actually you could take that as evidence either way!
October 10th, 2005 at 7:15 pm
Hi frog
Commentators have their own axes to grind, much like myself, so it pays to take what they say about the Greens with a large does of salt.
It is a great pity Nandor is gone. Putting him so far down the list was daft. Especially since Sue and Keith were ranked above him. I live in Auckland Central and would have considered giving my electorate vote to Nandor because I think highly of him.
Your blog on Bush and God was well put. Lots of people are religiously inspired, Martin Luther King comes to mind.
October 10th, 2005 at 7:27 pm
indeed stuey..you answered your own question..
and audioblogs mean diddly squat..except to a few…next time i expect they will be a valuable tool..but not this time out…
ditto with press releases…(which are/should be paired with audio-blogs..eh..?)
i mean..the mps could have been grafted onto rod and jeanette for media outings…surely the nuts and bolts of that were down to the campaign manager/team….not for me to answer from here..(it’s a bit lazy to blame the media..eh..?..)
i’m talking about being out here as a punter..and what i did and didn’t see..and i saw zip of the other green mps..it was annoying..
and the appearances of rod and jeanette seemed to be mostly of a ‘gee..look how nice we can be to labour” nature..(with the famous ‘put on your seatbelt’ admonition from helen to jeanette as they motored away from a photo-op)
..there was no passionate selling of green ideas/solutions…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 10th, 2005 at 8:05 pm
I’m not sure anything needs to be changed regarding the technical aspects of the party list building process frog. I think a party wide debate about the matter of new blood would suffice.
October 10th, 2005 at 9:00 pm
Just to get back on track here… this thread is supposed to be about Gordon Campbell bashing
For any Green here who regards direct participation in government as a lifeline, the odyssey of the Greens in Germany makes sobering reading.
oh yeah? Several terms of government, a very substantial record of implemented policies over numerous domains, some of them quite transformational, and going out of government with the same level of electoral support they had going in? (around 8%)
Pretty damn sobering alright!
I hope the NZ greens can manage an equally sobering record! Dilettante know-nothing journalism. As I said in the other thread, Campbell is full of cr*p.
It’s true that the German greens made a strategic shift to the centre-left (rather like BJChip advocates for us). They haven’t done too badly by it. Might they have done better if they had maintained the uneasy Realo/Fundi balance of earlier times? Not being able to see into the parallel universe where it happened like that, it’s impossible to say. However, they could not, in the old configuration, have participated in the rather Rogernomical reforms that Schröder has implemented in recent years. As a left-wing opposition to Schröder, would they have done better electorally? Quite possibly - they would logically have absorbed some of the support that bled from the SPD to the Left party.
Personally, and despite the close similarity of electoral systems, I don’t believe too much should be read into this with respect to NZ … cultural differences overwhelm any useful comparisons.
But, macroscopically… By analogy, there is a real danger that softening our positions on social and economic issues will open up a space for a new party on our left. That would be damaging for everyone — they wouldn’t make 5%, therefore a whole bunch of votes would be wasted, likely letting the right in. For pragmatic electoral reasons, I believe we have a responsibility to the NZ left to occupy the ground to the left of Labour, thereby ensuring that these votes come to us.
This is going to be complicated by the fact of being in coalition with Labour… it’s going to be a delicate balancing act, and requires a lot of visible policy successes in order to maintain our credibility.
October 10th, 2005 at 9:36 pm
Slight change of subject :
The media buzz (white noise?) seems to indicate a purely Labour ministry, i.e. presumably NZF as well as the irrelevant UF threatening the nuclear option of no confidence if there are Green ministers?
Or is there no NZF veto, and is Helen just going to pander to them, hoping to have a more constructive relationship and an easier ride for legislation from Winston, by keeping us out of government?
If that’s so, it could just turn out to be her biggest mistake. Consider : we would not have, fundamentally, any great obligation of solidarity. In fact, if things were going really badly for Labour in a year or two, and Green policies were not getting implemented for lack of ministerial support, there would be nothing to prevent the Greens voting with the wolf pack to bring down the government and force an early election. National in power and 15 Green MPs.
Just idle speculation really. Venting anger at the prospect of broken promises.
October 10th, 2005 at 9:59 pm
A general roundup:
I too was very sad that Nandor missed re-election … I had a hard look at our list afterwards. It is easy to say “put him higher”. Look at the contributions made by his colleagues! (Nandor chose to be out of sight for a while, and knows that it contributed to others ranking higher than he did. The Greens were not aware of how badly the vote would be affected by the “Minor Party Bleed”.) Look at today’s numbers … I don’t believe a 9% vote with Nandor in Parliament and a National led Government would have been better for the Greens.
I think Green list building and the list ranking processes are very good.
(If some people decide to be part of a block vote that is their decision … with which I don’t agree, but can’t stop.)
I also believe that a six months membership of the Party is a short time for newcomers to come to grips with how the Green Party works. I personally would not support a shorter time before people can take part in the crucial list ranking process. (It makes me wonder what those who advocate it are really trying to achieve.)
Believe it or not the Party needs the stability of its “old fogies” …
At what age, does one join that (seemingly boring) group??
Although I only rejoined the Green Party a few years ago, I was around when the Values Party was formed!! (Obviously extremely ancient!)
I have worked, when invited, with Young Greens and find their enthusiasm wonderful, but, in many cases, understandably short lived. The “old fogies” have their uses … they provide continuity when younger people follow their curiousity or careers elewhere … They also are reliable volunteers for the boring jobs that someone has to do.
I don’t know which Green groups others on this blog associate with … but my impression is that the Aoraki Greens (Canterbury) seem not to be as “ageist” (?)
eredwen
October 10th, 2005 at 10:24 pm
Reading the criticisms of Jeanette and Rod fronting up to the media.
I would suspect that that was the idea of the various media … “to give all the minor parties similar exposure” … and having that model firmly in their minds because other parties have that model firmly in their minds …
October 11th, 2005 at 3:20 am
I agree with Eredwen here on the six month requirement for internal voting.
Given the suggestion of a shorter time comes from students who should be quite familiar with student associations shenanigans and how easy it can be to stack voting and membership, I’m surprised that they don’t seem to have thought their suggestion through very much.
I have been in organisations where a small but very active and aggressive minority has tried to join, take over and enforce their agenda, and I would be most upset to see that happen to any Green Party branches.
And, I’m sorry but I think the membership fee issue is a bit of a red herring too. Most student clubs and organisations cost more than $5 to join anyhow. Who takes seriously anything they paid $5 for?
Even $15 is only 3 jugs of beer, or a joint, or a packet and a half of ciggies. Let’s get some perspective here. And yes, I was a student last year so please don’t stick up the possible straw man that I don’t understand living on a student allowance..
October 11th, 2005 at 6:23 am
HEY! I don’t advocate any big shifts… just some little adjustments! It really would not take much to get from
“Greens - too scary”
to
“Greens - new ideas”
in the minds of our swing voters. Perceptions are formed and pivot on some very small issues here. Things that Greens aren’t even united on for the most part, or are ALL of you in favour of defenseless pacifism
This is New Zealand not Germany and I really do not think we’d have to do much real shifting to get our message heard more clearly out to the electorate. Just take out the show-stoppers and you’re there. Still not centrist and not likely to get over 15% real soon but positively potent.
If I had enough time I might really get stuck into this. This party has a LOT of potential.
respectfully
BJ
October 11th, 2005 at 8:58 am
WRT the lineup being nearly identical to what it was in 1999, I think the “problem” here is more that the Greens have too much talent. Those MPS are all extraordinarily hard working, and have good profile for minor party MPs (far higher than most from NZ First or United Future). And while I’m sure we all want Nandor back in, that would have required the departure of someone currently ranked above him - which would have been just as much of a tragedy.
This was a tight election, and the Green vote suffered accordingly. The key has to be to rebuild it; new blood will come with that. Encouraging membership and active participation is the way forward here. And OTOH, I’m not a member, and have never organised a politicla party in my life, so what the hell would I know about it?
Finally, remember that the Greens are a list party. If they want “new blood”, then MPs can always retire mid-term and allow the first available person from the list to fill their place. But again, I can’t think of a single MP I’d want to go in this fashion.
October 11th, 2005 at 9:32 am
alister..take a few deep breaths..and think of the benefits of not being in a full coalition….
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 11th, 2005 at 10:41 am
Sometimes you get what you ask for,and in this campaign the Greens asked to be seen as the dependable back up partner to Labour …
the options were not all that great.
the foreshore issue ignited Maori nationalism and won over a lot of last election voters on the Maori roll.
Labour certainly gobbled up quite a few students with their no interest policy, and Winnie’s “support the highest score” declaration really made things difficult.
There was no cultist GE campaign (for which I am thankful) and its little sister Peak Oil is really part of the terribly sensible “I told you so…” image that turns a lot of even Green members into very cool supporters.
So we did alright. Greens have obviously a sounder base in the wider electorate than the other “personality” dependent minor parties.
I do think the party had better look to developing a little more spark to its image…
The women in parliament seem to be a pretty good mix, with all of them appearing to be conscientious, hard working with high profiles and a good personal following.
Sadly I think the boys need to do better ….lots better…
our green members are not upstanding, you might say …
Rod is a tired image … visually he has always been bitsy… the mobile strapped to his head was a real turn off for the average punter …the stubble gives a real blotchy look, he is beginning to look like a loser… banging on about coalition when it does not seem a go …
Keith is an admirable m.p. that does his party proud, but he is not an extrovert, and will never set the house on fire, even naked we only smile and look the other way.
Nandor has been wonderful for party brand recognition, but he was the icon for marijuana liberalisation and that campaign has definitely been a big failure.
We badly need one or more guys with the wit and likeability of Meht and/or the iconic serenity and reasonableness of Jeanette, and/or the flash and energy of Sue K and/or the street cred and application to the cause of Sue B.
October 11th, 2005 at 11:31 am
Bruce T:
I don’t know where you get your ideas about Rod Donald. I live in the Banks Penninsula Electorate and am part of the wider Aoraki Greens. I doubt that any of the people here, who have first hand knowledge of Rod would agree with you, including his constituents who only know him as an MP. (I think they’d laugh!)
The guy is a highly intelligent human dynamo. He works very hard and inspires many, including the young.
I agree with your assessment of Keith, except that I don’t think that people necessarily look for an MP who “sets the house on fire”.
I’d vote for either of them any day! and so would a very interesting group who live in the more affluent parts of Banks Penninsula … the “Blue candidate / Green party” voters.
October 11th, 2005 at 11:45 am
Bruce T:
Having reread your post … there are some really good males with excellent qualities on the Green list. All that is needed is a higher Green party vote next time!
Meanwhile the two who are MPs have my full support!
October 11th, 2005 at 3:03 pm
so..eredwen…how are you aoriki greens going with that campaign to convince your supporters that giving rod the electorate vote means diddly-squat..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 11th, 2005 at 7:06 pm
phil u:
How does that saying go? … “One can get some of the message across to some of the people some of the time. It is even possible to get most of the message across to most of the people … etc”
We certainly haven’t yet managed to get all of the message across to all of the people all of the time! Rod is popular in the elctorate and he gets thousands of Electorate votes.
I spent Polling Day (including vote counting time) between two of the highest Green-Polling booths in Banks Penninsula, and have a few ideas to discuss/try for general voter education for the next election campaign.
Kiwis of all ages and backgrounds take their voting seriously, which is an absolute delight to watch, but some (too many) don’t prepare beforehand and end up not doing their best for the Candidate and Party they want to see elected.
October 11th, 2005 at 7:09 pm
phil u:
Our province is named for “Aoraki” (you know … the highest mountain in Aotearoa NZ) .. not “aoriki”
October 11th, 2005 at 8:07 pm
so eredwen..how about sharing those voter education ideas you came up with..thank you..
phil(whoar.co
October 11th, 2005 at 9:24 pm
I really, really don’t get this idea that people should be DISCOURAGED from giving their electoral vote to the Green candidate.
We all understand, I hope, that directing our supporters’ electorate votes to the local Labour candidates makes precisely zero difference overall — it doesn’t help Labour, even if it results in the local getting elected, they knock someone else off the list.
The concept, I suppose, is that if you’re only giving one vote to the Greens, make it the party vote — but is there really a sizeable slice of the electorate which is determined to split its vote, but not clued up on the consequences?
i.e. are there really a lot of people who, for whatever psychological reason, are happy to give one, but not two votes to the Greens?
I suspect not, and I really think we should be running two-tick campaigns in half a dozen selected electorates.
October 12th, 2005 at 7:15 am
ok alister..i think how it goes is “yes.. we would love you to give us two votes..but ..if you are only going to give us one..could you please make it the party vote..as this is the only one that counts..”
and yes alister..this is a major problem for us…(just look at the voting stats..that will answer your questions..)
a green voter even commented on this site telling us she had given her party vote to labour and her electorate vote to sue k…just to show her support..aarrgghh!
so ..obviously we have failed at getting that message out….(and the billboards certainly didn’t do the trick..too clever by half..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 12th, 2005 at 8:12 am
Media appeal has not much at all to do with local popularity, ability or overall worthiness.
We all know that Tony Blair has a tremendous image advantage over the Tory and other Labour candidates and that has nothing to do with his qualities as a prime minister but sure matters at election time.
The horrible little Rodney Hide has a
There is not much point in Rod’s local supporters giving witness to his qualities, the fact is that the majority of voters get their impressions from the media,we do not live in Banks peninsula and most voters know nothing about local efforts. These issues might be important but they do not attract nationwide support.
I am listening to Jeanette right now on National Radio,and I am getting instant recognition, mellow voice and clear message. That is just about a perfect score.
October 12th, 2005 at 8:27 am
From my last message:
I did not complete “The horrible little Rodney Hide…”that should go on to say “…despite his hotch potch of opportunisim and right wing ideology, he comes across as very clever, entertaining and fun.”
His bossy boots line on tv, probably won more votes than anything Rod has said in the last 12 months.
The competition is not to win the approval of Green voting wonks,but winning identification with uncommitted voters.
I am not suggesting all members of a team need to be extrovert stars, but there is little in the current male Green line up to attract uncommitted voters,and that I think was an important issue underling this election.
I actually think Brash appealed to some kiwi blokes and women simply because he was an “aw shucks” awkward green horn.
I know lots of people who feel very unrepresented by the Labour cabinet line up of academics (why they do not push Annette King more, I do not know.She has high credibility)
Similarly I think Meht and Jeanette were the main vote “winners” for the Greens, and worthy though Rod and Keith may be, there is not spark in our male line up anymore.
October 12th, 2005 at 8:49 am
All these complaints about the party vote going to labour seem to dismiss the issue of the MMP being subverted by the declaration of one of the minor parties that it would support “whoever got the most votes”… leading to the issue of “who gets to form government” being raised on everyone’s radar.
Looked at another way, if Greens had 7% and Labour and Nats were dead equal, who would be forming government. We had a “near death experience” but we also did EXACTLY what was needed to squeeze Labour into a position to form a government first… which was shift party votes TO Labour but without actually killing ourselves in the process.
We were actually marvelously clever about it.
Now we have to get in 123MMP and some rule to dictate the “right of first attempt” to form government.
respectfully
BJ
October 12th, 2005 at 12:15 pm
BJ: The right to form a government belongs to whoever can get the numbers. The ability to get the numbers comes from a combination of policy compatibility, negotiation and compromise. And in this, you can’t force people to work with people they don’t want to, or prevent them from negotiating with whoever they see fit. Any “rule” in such an area is simply a waste of time. Not to mention a constraint on the wishes of the electorate.
What is surprising is that (from the coverage, which may of course be incomplete) the negotiations have all centered on the larger parties. Why aren’t the Greens negotiating with the Maori Party, either to gain confidence and supply for the sort of government they want, or to work out areas where they can cooperate on policy? Why aren’t they talking with United Future about student allowances and family support, or NZFirst about a higher minimum wage? There are definite areas of policy overlap, and therefore scope for cooperation between the smaller parties, even if they disagree on almost everything else. Working together allows these issues to be advanced much more effectively; not talking allows Labour to use divide and rule tactics, just as it did last term.
October 12th, 2005 at 12:38 pm
I/S
The ability to “form a government” actually exists for both Nats and Labour on the face of it. With Winston willing to “go with the largest” and ACT and Dunne being wooed by the religious right it is QUITE conceivable that Brash could go through very similar gyrations to the ones Clark is performing and form a viable minority government.
That means that ABILITY is not a sufficient discriminator. The mob that goes first almost certainly CAN succeed (if they haven’t totally P’d off the rest of the electorate) - It is a hole in the MMP rules that wants filling and it wants filling before the next election.
The other issue that you address however, is quite interesting. Yes, we probably could band together on specific issues. Cooperation on some things might lead to less recalcitrance on others… I reckon a good thing if it were to come to pass.
Right now I am fascinated by Rod Donald’s call on the foreign home buyer’s getting tracked. It really does seem to me that the money I am competing with to buy housing can’t be all NZ $… there is simply too much of it washing around the place. I hope he gets some traction with this.
respectfully
BJ
October 12th, 2005 at 5:24 pm
BJChip: Sure, Brash could form a government - and if he can cut the right deals, then all power to him. This isn’t any sort of “hole in MMP” - it’s what politics is all about: persuading other people to do what you want, rather than what the other guy wants.
Provided parties are relatively upfront with the electorate about their intentions (even if those intentions are “sell ourselves to the highest bidder”), then I see nothing whatsoever wrong with this.
October 13th, 2005 at 2:21 pm
frog:
there used to be a $5 unwaged/student subscription to membership, not sure when that stopped;
student activity on campuses around the country didn’t seem to be reflected in equivalent amounts of youth membership; perhaps once the financial aspect is addressed, that would change.
I don’t think Germany’s swinging Green party is very relevant to our MMP makeup, they have historically different problems, and huge environmental cleanup issues, not to mention their race issues and employment sagas; Our platform is based on some very different fundamentals.
October 14th, 2005 at 11:43 am
Katie:
I believe the unwaged provision is still available; but I stand corrected.
Indeed, Die Grunen (German Greens) has a different makeup to us as they were formed from different movements and ideological strands in society. The Greens there were the coming together of anti-nuclear activists, conservationists, feminists, student activists and so on.
The German Greens that we see now is rather factionalised, with the 4 factions being the ‘Fundies’, ‘Realos’, eco-socialists and eco-libertarians. (Yes, imagine a laissez-faire advocate who also cares deeply about the ecosystem.) As a model to follow, I wouldn’t say that we should be emulating them in all respects. However, their role in a coalition government should teach us all a thing or two.