What we’ve got
Sometime during the recent election campaign I heard a Kiwi overseas on the radio commenting that what they find frustrating about New Zealanders is our lack of appreciation of ‘what we’ve got’. They didn’t just mean our ‘clean, green’ land, but also our on-to-it society and politics. This was another reminder that, while holes can often be picked in these perceptions, New Zealand is a beacon of hope to many in this world and that, in a way, the Greens’ calling includes a responsibility to stick up for what the rest of humanity value about Aotearoa.
That feeling has been renewed today with the arrival on my desk of Babylon and Beyond: The Economics of Anti-Capitalist, Anti-Globalist and Radical Green Movements, a book by Derek Wall published in London.
I say this because Nandor wrote the Foreword for this promising tome and the author’s two-page Acknowledgements open with “To Nandor, of course.”
There is surely no doubt that relatively few New Zealanders appreciated ‘what we’ve got’ when Nandor was in Parliament, but it is to be hoped that more will come to recognise that his mere presence, let alone his endeavours, added to this place.
More on Babylon and Beyond to follow…
October 11th, 2005 at 4:02 pm
Frog said:
… relatively few New Zealanders appreciated ‘what we’ve got’ when Nandor was in Parliament, but it is to be hoped that more will come to recognise that his mere presence, let alone his endeavours, added to this place.
I say “Hear! Hear!”
eredwen
October 11th, 2005 at 7:06 pm
Talking of (and as one of those) New Zealanders overseas, it easy to see from abroad that envoronmentally, things can potentially get a whole lot worse before they get better. I look at the examples of Manila, Bangkok, KL, and many Chinese cities, and wonder why both National and Labour are so committed to more roads, especially when there are the examples of Japan as a whole, Singapore, Hong Kong and Taipei and even India, that show the usefulness of a train network.
it very often seems to me sometimes that being an English-speaking nation works to our disadvantage in the exchange of ideas in that we get strongly influenced by the UK and US, both of which are much larger, and have more resources than we do, and whose very large scale economies often simply don’t translate well to NZ.
As far as getting things done goes, the UK and US have the numbers of people to allow a small percentage of trained educated people to be the backbone of their science and ecological activism and study. NZ does not have that luxury. We need everybody to be aware and supportive.
One advantage NZ Greens would have for policy research is that it is easy to talk to the majority of people in any field, AND INCLUDE THEM.
That is ultimately what Greens and any activists in NZ need to do.
(Incidentally this is why I think the example of the German Greens under MMP needs to examined very carefully. Germany is not NZ. And, a large part of what information we get is filtered through translation, and the media). How many Aotearoa Greens understand German? Can we get German ex-pats into the party?
October 11th, 2005 at 7:16 pm
Maybe it wasn’t the people of New Zealand that didn’t appreciate him, but rather the people who kicked him down the list.
On a more positive note, it’s nice to hear something good said about our politicians. We can be fairly hard on them.
October 11th, 2005 at 7:21 pm
jingyang:
Good thinking.
I think the American influence in Aotearoa is much more insidious than the
British is now, and we do have German speakers, some expat, in the Party.
October 11th, 2005 at 7:26 pm
will:
“People” didn’t “kick Nandor down the list”
That isn’t the way the process works.
October 11th, 2005 at 11:41 pm
eredwen: I agree with you that “There is surely no doubt that relatively few New Zealanders appreciated ‘what we’ve got’ when Nandor was in Parliament”.
Relatively the same numbers of New Zealanders voted green in 2005 as they did last time. Nandor would have been elected this time if he had not been demoted.
There is no point in lamenting his loss on behalf of “New Zealanders” who aren’t even aware that they voted him out.
The party voted him out.
October 12th, 2005 at 1:42 am
Will :
It’s a cruel world. There are winners and losers. Nandor was in exactly the same position this year as in 99. It happens that he was so impressive in his first term that he moved up the list in 02. He was less visible in his second term, for family reasons it seems (and good on him), so he moved back to 7th place.
In fact, he could have been ranked much lower than he was in 02, and still been elected, because you’re wrong about the relative number of Green voters (six does not equal nine…. whatever Jimi Hendrix says!)
It’s true that parties are very powerful, in MMP. That power is exercised collectively in the Greens.
October 12th, 2005 at 9:45 pm
will:
I share your disappointment.
However, speaking personally, I agonise every time I am asked to rank our candidates on my copy of the Party List (as all Green Party members are asked to do as part of the Green’s ranking process.) The task takes me many hours and some loss of sleep!!
The Greens have many exceptional candidates who would make excellent MPs (of a calbre IMO well ahead of candidates, from larger Parties, who get elected regularly). However, Green is still a minor Party and we cannot get all of them into Parliament.
While it is possible that there may be someone in the Party who would “vote Nandor down the list” I have never met such a person.
I was very sad when the Green vote didn’t make the “Nandor cut”!
It was unexpected. If you must lay blame, blame it on the last 1,800 (approx) people who Party Voted Labour this time instead of Green… but personally I can’t do that. We did ask people to “Party Vote Green”, but there was a huge nationwide effort to get a Labour-led Government with a Green presence. Each voter did his/her best, and Nandor was IMO the most unfortunate casualty.
On a brighter note: I’m absolutely sure that Te Pirimaia Tanczos will be happy that her Daddy has more time to spend with her at such a formative time in her life, and I know that Nandor is looking forward to that …
I will willingly join you in working together to make sure that Nandor is back in Parliament at the next election.
sincerely,
eredwen
October 13th, 2005 at 3:28 pm
Will, Alistair and Eredwen:
Unfortunately it doesn’t look like Nandor will be standing again… Who knows; only time will tell. But he has indicated a number of times that if he didn’t make it back in this time, he wouldn’t go for it again. (I asked him again after the specials, and his line hasn’t changed.)
That said, Nandor has stated that “I will continue to be involved in politics, of which Parliament is only one means.” So true. Parliamentary involvement is but one mode/means of political activity. Nandor has also mentioned that being out of Parliament might actually give him the opportunity to re-radicalise his politics.
No doubt, the loss of Nandor from Parliament is a tragic loss. But every cloud has a silver lining, and I’m sure this isn’t the last we will be seeing/hearing of Nandor in the political scene.
October 13th, 2005 at 11:40 pm
Red Green:
That makes me more happy than sad!
Parliament gives me the impression of being a “constipating” place as far as new ideas are concerned. I admire the Green MPs for the way they navigate through the assumptions and expectations, but they remain constrained in many ways.
Wherever Nandor goes now he will be newsworthy, and thus outside Parliament could be, as the “Pied Piper with his entourage” ( literally or figuratively), a big influence for timely reappraisal and change towards a better society (current and future).
Go Nandor!
eredwen
October 13th, 2005 at 11:53 pm
will:
Rechecking the final vote count, the needed extra Party Votes to get Nandor into Parliament were less than 1 300, (ie: less than eleven per electorate).
My previous gestimate was 500 too many!
It doesn’t make the result any different … but it does indicate that the Party really DID expect Nandor, in Party List place 7, to get into Parliament.
eredwen
October 14th, 2005 at 11:22 am
Yes it was only 1246 extra votes that would’ve seen Nandor back in…
As Jeanette put it, that another 18 votes per electorate. EIGHTEEN!
So much can be read into this. But I have a good feeling it’s those fearful of a National-led government that led to the ‘defecting’ from the Greens this election.
I know a number of Princes St Labour people who voted Green because they recognised that the failure of the Greens to get enough seats, or even get back in for that matter, would’ve been detrimental to Labour and their prospects of governing a third term.
Accordingly, it is the failure to vote Green that would’ve increased the chances of a National-led government! I kept telling people I knew (sometimes to no avail) that voting Labour will not conclusively rule out a National-led government. If you want Labour, don’t vote Labour.
Ironic, but true.