No time for self-pity

90
8

Metiria-Turei-and-Russel-Norman--election-night--26nov2011--Getty-Images

After 23 meetings across the largest non-Maori electorate in the country – almost all of which went fantastically, approx 4,500km on the odometer, positive MSM and social media coverage, and polling well, I admit my team and I headed to Queenstown for my election night party feeling quietly confident and slightly nervous. Going by the polls, the Greens were, quite reasonably, expecting 15%, and with the largest jump in party votes in the electorate in 2011 at 8.54%, my goal of 10% felt almost conservative – even National Party people thought so. But it was not to be. 7%. And nationwide – 10.62% party vote.

I wasn’t the only one to take a hit down south on the ‘left’. Dr Liz Craig, my Labour colleague, couldn’t break through National’s richly resourced campaign. I really feel for her, and I’ll be investing some time in persuading her to stay in politics. Without this amazing woman, we would not have comprehensive, vital statistics on the health of NZ’s children in poverty. She is in it for the right reasons, she was one of the highest new candidates on Labour’s list, and  is extremely capable of helping NZ dig ourselves out of our inequality gap. I hope she gives it another go.

Dave Kennedy, the Green candidate for Invercargill also didn’t have the election night he hoped for. A legend in NZ’s education circles, he was 18 on the list, and polling how we were, he was in. Double disappointment.  But we both know we ran excellent campaigns, and we’ll both be back in 2017, when I know we’ll crack 15% nationwide.

Polls are clearly not always correct. Usually that goes in our favour – but not this time.

This election’s minor party winner, in the south anyway, was NZ First. And obviously, it was National’s night. I’ll leave the gripping analysis on what caused this to other bloggers. They are way better at it than I am – but it’s pretty clear what happened. Because I want to concentrate on the Greens.

I’m biased, obviously. But even the critics are struggling to come up with substantial criticism of our campaign. We did fabulously on the campaign trail. Our messaging was clear, we were focused, we concentrated on our own business, did our best to stay clear of drama, and stuck up for those without a voice – our kids, and our environment. Yes, some navel-gazing will occur, as happens every election within every party. Yes, there are lessons to be learnt, things to do differently. But we are as strong and determined as we were in the campaign, today. We held our own. After special votes hopefully we will have 14 MP’s, as we did in the previous term.

So as I get back home to Invercargill, sit down on the couch and ponder introspectively, I am very aware of how easy it would be for me to slide into disillusionment, disappointment, and self-loathing, question everything, and become despairing. Fortunately, that’s not where I am today, and I’m not going there.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

The noisiest sign of this determined mood is me blasting the house with Rage Against The Machine’s Battle for Los Angeles. Fitting, I feel!! Lyrics just as relevant today as they were then. Y’kinda need a bit of musical reinforcement at times like this.

And I’m as determined today (as is the entire party), because our campaign continues in opposition. We will continue to focus on the issues that matter – to our vulnerable people, families, communities, and as a country.

There is no room for self pity, for any of us. This was the ‘craziest election NZ has ever seen’. One has to keep perspective and concentrate on what actually matters. What the big deal is is that nothing has changed since yesterday, and little positive if any at all will change in the next 3 years for those are in desperate need of change – sooner rather than later. And that is at the forefront of my mind. We must continue the fight for a fairer, smarter, cleaner society.

1,000,000 didn’t vote this election. A friend said it rather well: “Voter apathy is what National was relying on and they got it. New Zealand didn’t speak. That’s what hopelessness does to people. Why bother when you have nothing to lose?” I agree.

I’m not mad at those people for not voting. I feel for them. I understand.

Many of those are in poverty, students, people in transient work, young adults who are disillusioned with this politics stuff, single parent families, struggling ‘nuclear’ families, the disenfranchised, people with no fixed abode,  people so beaten down that they truly believe their vote won’t matter and nothing will ever get better, only worse. And National played a sick game with them – a ‘we’re awful but they will be way worse, trust me’ game. Infused with fear and mistrust, they stayed home. 800 more Clutha Southlanders stayed home than last time. I know other electorates have even higher non-participation trends.

They say that the key to bringing out non-voters is providing meaningful differences in policy. We absolutely did, but unfortunately they were drowned out by the hysteria and drama. But we held our own, we stand alongside you – and in 3 years, you can confidently vote Green, know it will count and that we will be true to our word.

We will spend the next 3 years leading the campaign to reduce inequality, protect our environment and secure a more sustainable economy. We will fight for real jobs, not casual/13/27/35 hour a week insecure jobs. We will fight for a wage you can survive and thrive on. We will fight for you to study to the level you wish to achieve to participate and contribute to society. We will fight for your kids to have lunch in their puku at school and free doctor’s visits too. We will fight for affordable homes that keep you warm and healthy. We will fight for a sufficiently funded health and education system that isn’t under incredible and increasing strain. We will fight for progress, for our rivers, the state of our farmland, for an economy diverse enough to not collapse with one big mishap. We will fight for true democracy, for integrity, for responsible government, for trust, transparency, for truth, for clean politics.

As a fellow Green said – “They say it’s not whether you win or lose, its how you play the game, and we play a good clean long-term game.”

Indeed.

90 COMMENTS

  1. Couldn’t agree more with this summary. Attended campaign meeting here in Te Anau, assisted Liz Craig with her campaign. Awful that even in this beautiful spot there are many struggling on low wages, casual work and who can’t afgord a doctor or the prescription when their loved ones are ill. There are elderly who must move to Gore, Invercargill, or Riverton for elderly care when they have lived here most of their life. There are people here who miss out on bargains because they can’t buy the petrol to travel to larger centres for shopping and there is not much here. Housing is dearer tha Invercargill as well. Did Bill English do anything for this area? No, he told me once that assisting local groups to get their concerns to Parliament was not his job, and they still voteNational. The disaffected msy rise up in 3 years and beg the left to come in and clean up the mess.

    • Thanks Dorothy, I agree. Cheers for helping Liz – and coming to the Te Anau meeting – which was definitely no-one’s best performance. The candidates did 700km that day and 3 meetings. Which goes to show our level of dedication – no other candidates faced the challenges of Clutha Southland candidates travel and logistics wise. It is a tough electorate to run in – but I enjoy a challenge 🙂

  2. So sick of hearing ‘voter apathy’ moans. People are entitled to not vote: that, in itself, is just as democratic. As for polls, I’ve said it a million times: you either value all polls equally, or ignore the lot – the progressive left tendency leading up to the election was to denounce the msm polls – fair enough – but then to trumpet anything that showed what they wanted to hear. Crazy. Delusional.

    • “As for polls, I’ve said it a million times: you either value all polls equally, or ignore the lot ”

      Not at all, Derrin. Most polls are not created equal.

      I’ll be doing an analysis shortly on which polls were the most accurate, but the wild swings between low 44% to high 54% was never a credible view of National’s support.

      Critical analysis is never “crazy” or “delusional”. Question everything.

      • Cheers, Frank, but wondering where the erudite analysis was when the progressive left were deluding themselves (non-critically) with the flattering numbers over the unflattering, pre-election of course

      • Your analysis of the polls tends to be against the election results and as such doesn’t reflect changes in voter preferences over time. Even the last polls were taken around a week before the election day so therefore don’t take in to account any change in sentiment in the final week. You would be better to use the early voting results if they are counted on the day they are cast to get an indication of how the polls line up against the actual results.

        • Surprised as I am to be agreeing with Gosman I think he makes a good point. Given the roller coaster ride we had through the election campaign there could well have been significant changes over the period of a week.

          • Its called manipulation of the election.

            Easy to do all you need is a special non traceable program of selection during tabulation of the input data after votes are manually read.

            We lived in Florida when it happened there during state elections so we certainly were victim of this clearly friends sorry.

            To prove this you need a copy of thee non traceable program used and good luck with that.

            Someone very cleaver may find one some day and prove this.

    • Reading the above, it shows the Greens still don’t get it. It’s a subtle variation of “it’s the voters fault”

      It’s not. It’s your fault.

      Your positioning is wrong. It needs to focus on environmentalism and sit happily alongside whoever is in power. Your focus on poverty is wrong. Few people are buying the “poverty” line, because it’s not true, no matter how much you play semantic games between absolute and relative levels. People are not in poverty. Some are poorer than others and are trapped. You need to focus on social mobility, instead.

      You are right about diversifying the economy, but wrong about the solution. You all need to take economics courses and ditch the economics of Venezuela. You can’t pick winners any more than National can. You can investigate what conditions small businesses need to become big businesses. Hint: it’s mostly to do with tax, investment and ease of compliance.

      Feel free to smile smugly and ignore it. You’ll wind up in the same place in 2017. Again.

        • The Greens don’t suffer from lack of attention. They’ve been all over the media for the past three years, from objecting to drilling to talking up poverty.

          Result. Zero.

          Why?

          Wrong issues. That’s only ever going to earn approving nods from people because it “sounds nice”. A nod costs them nothing. First rule of marketing – don’t listen to what people say, watch what they *do*.

          They’re voting against you. In droves. What you talk about is not important to them, especially when it comes to their back pocket.

            • The problem is the question is leading. No one advocates poverty. Not one person. You will not find one person who says “yep, poverty is great, we need more of it”.

              The reality is most voters don’t believe we have a poverty problem. They believe some people are poorer than others. Any rhetoric around increased handouts won’t work. It needs to shift to creating the conditions for employment and higher wages.

              Achieves the same end, but that rhetoric works, because it is closer to the truth.

              • I think the many thousands of Kiwis actually living in poverty might just believe that we have poverty.

                And I don’t think an economic policy like that of the National party would ever gain more votes for Greens.

                And I don’t think the Greens need to strip back all their policy apart for that which focusses on the environment. Because our environment and our economy are intrinsically linked.

            • ACT are a joke. I’m not advocating ACT.

              Not moving your vote when the vote has increased and Labour are in complete disarray is a big, flashing warning sign.

              You are going backwards in real terms. You’re going backwards for the reasons outlined above. You will only ever resonate with a small club of believers, unless you meet the voters in the middle. To do that, your position needs to change.

              If you believe otherwise, you’re just blaming the voters.

                • In other words, “the message isn’t getting through”?

                  The message is getting through. The Greens have been all over the media for three years, and it’s almost entirely positive. The Greens are seldom subject to negative questioning by the media in the way National, ACT and The Conservatives are.

                  But New Zealanders don’t care for your message. The small, dispossed echo-chamber does. Keep talking to them, by all means, but if you want to win this thing, you need to accept that the problem is entirely within the party.

                  • There is a really popular meme in New Zealand, maybe you’ve come across it.

                    “the Greens would bankrupt the country within 6 months”

                    I’m pretty sure that idea did not come from the Green Party.

                    And I’m pretty sure that this widely held idea negatively affects the number of votes Greens get.

                    The MSM has something to do with this.

                    • Indeed we did not – we went to the extent of having our entire budget costed independently and they came back and proved (independently) that we would have larger surpluses sooner than National. We trumpeted that to the media very, very loudly – but it was just too boring. For them.

                  • Karl: You have some good points. They seem accurate within the context of how things are. Your comments about the media’s positive treatment of the Greens is way off base.

                    The Greens are seeking to change the context of how things are. That is fundamental.

                    The way things are includes:
                    Corporate media controlling what we hear and how we hear it. They set the tone, choose and frame the issues and who we get to hear from.

                    Corporations rigging the markets, financial and social, for their own benefit. See the TPPA for the next generation of corporate control.

                    This gets us, to among other things:

                    Social and economic inequality

                    Disastrous climate change

                    The challenge for the left is how to get our policies across to the public. The policies will improve life for 90%+, and as Rachel has pointed out they have been independently vetted.

                    Many decades of a propaganda media have poisoned people to even the notion of anything the left has to offer possibly being good. So it is safe for the media to occasionally say nice things about the left having already neutered them.

                  • I vote for the GP being the only party that speaks about issues such as climate change, the end to cheap fossil fuels, the uncertain global financial system, covert Corporate Govt control, inequality etc etc. The GP stand out from other parties because of these policies. If you don’t believe these issues, if you don’t care for future generations or if you are uninformed, of course you won’t vote for GP. But I would not change the policies to chase the voters. Someone has to voice these issues. And one day the public will be forced to believe the issues – maybe too late. Meantime stay true to what you believe.

            • Yes.

              Here’s how it plays. “250K kids are in poverty!” The base repeat that line as if it is gospel truth.

              But it isn’t true.

              Middle NZ see piles of empty booze cans in the trash when they watch Nigel Latter. “Hmmm…” they think. “These people have money, they just spend it on the wrong things”.

              That is a lot closer to the truth. When people perceive that truth, the Greens credibility takes a hit.

              It would be much better to characterise it as “many poor parents need help”. A subtle difference, but retains credibility.

              • You come across exactly like the people who see someone being pushed in a wheelchair and can’t bring themselves to look at them or smile – just fix their eye & smile on the carer, pretending the disabled person doesn’t exist.
                You’re talking about adults.
                I’m talking about their kids.
                Big difference.

              • Karl – what utter rubbish.

                Even the PM himself admitted in the Sydney Morning Herald that Child Poverty had increased, not decreased.

                Your reference to ” piles of empty booze cans in the trash when they watch Nigel Latter” is a cop-out on your part. By putting blame onto the parents, it absolves you of considering the problem any further.

                What you miss is that (a) your image of ” piles of empty booze cans in the trash when they watch Nigel Latter” is a fantasy on your part (b) even if true, children are not responsible for their parents actions, and (c) “Latter” is spelled “Latta”.

                It is self-imposed fantasies like yours that are part of the problem, and the cause of child poverty perpetuating itself.

                Because here’s the thing, “Karl”, there is no way that more and more New Zealanders are making lifestyle choices to be poor and spending their cash on booze. Very few, if any, choose to be poor. And no one chooses to be an alcoholic. And even those minority who are drinkers are either addicted (and alcoholism is no respecter of demographics), or their alienation and deprivation is so grinding that they have given up hope, and opted out of life.

                Your comfortable life is a blind spot to how others live. You sole means of dealing with the problem (I refuse to call it an “issue”) is to reframe it as a “lifestyle choice”. Which, when you think it through, makes no sense at all.

                • Karl –

                  Are you really suprised that SOME poor people may choose to alleviate their misery for a few hours with some alchohol instead of replacing their worn shoes? How DARE they!!! I think you have absolutely no grasp of the human condition, Are you an alien Karl? Or just another bloody troll.

                  • Usually I charge for this advice. You can take it or leave it, as you see fit.

                    I’ll be gone soon, so I’ll leave you all to your analysis.

                    You’ve got to understand who you’re talking to, not just claim to do so. Understand their reference points. Talk to those reference points. The further you are away from those reference points, the worse your message will do. Talking to those who have same reference points you do will only ever get you the same result. Their votes, no one else’s. Key’s vote is growing for a reason. It’s because he understands people and uses their reference points. He does not use the reference points or worldview of the FX trader.

                    Many on the left don’t even seem to know it’s an issue, as your post so aptly demonstrates.

                • The booze in the trash can sends the signal to middle NZ that handing more money to the parents is not the answer. Perpetuating the parents situation is not the answer.

                  Yet much Green policy solution is about more money and greater welfare.

                  Fail.

                  One solution is meals in schools, but you need to approach it from a different direction. Turn it into something valuable for the parents of those children i.e. it will be cheaper, due to economies of scale. They do this in the US. Parents like it, it’s convenient. Don’t go campaign for more welfare. That runs counter to the truth. Get the payment off the parents directly.

                  Everyone wins.

                  • The answer Karl, is to stop allowing the working class to be screwed over by paying decent wages so they can enjoy a decent standard of living too. Then we can meet our living expenses and have enough desposable income to spend on whatever the bloody hell we like without judgement from the holier-than-thou likes of you. An essential part of that direction would be for those who cannot work or are incapacitated, to receive enough to have a quality life as opposed to being imprisoned in their own home. The tax revenue would also increase to fund it. We know it works because that´s how it use to be before the greedy, anti-human, elitists took charge. You didn´t answer my question about being an alien, I suspected as much!

      • It depends on your definition of poverty I suppose. I work two jobs and go without essentials, often meat, and heating, haven´t had new clothes for a very long time, so my kids can have what they need. It was not always like this, to all the sanctimonious who say don´t have kids then. Our power bills are just obscene, along with food, rates, insurance and the mortgage. The insurance is about to go. I don´t remember the last time my husband and I went out. I define poverty as not being able to meet the cost of a basic living. Poverty is also poor quality of life, just existing, leading to poor physical and mental health. A remark like” there is no poverty” is just plain offensive and arrogant, as if we should be grateful for existing. We know it doesn´t have to be this way, otherwise it would have always been this way.

        • Sounds like my parents and grandparents.

          There is no absolute poverty (UNs definition). There will *always* be relative poverty.

          So, the message needs to be how do people like you become upwardly mobile? That’s the real problem. That resonates. “Poverty” is too emotive a word, because it’s conflating absolute poverty with relative poverty.

          Key talks about opportunity. Through work. Through business development. Like it or not, that message does resonate.

          • “Key talks about opportunity. Through work. Through business development.”
            He talks about it – pity he doesn’t do a anything about it – except – “leave it to the market, we don’t want to sully our hands actually doing anything!

            • Let’s say that’s true – it doesn’t matter.

              The *message resonates*. The Greens message does not. If it did, you’d extend your vote beyond your tribal base.

              Why does it resonate? Because the subtext is “if you put a bit of effort in, you get rewarded”. New Zealanders respond to that message because New Zealand society is based on the protestant work ethic.

              • Although I disagree with much of what you’ve said (I am very familiar with the works of Karl Marx – you however seem to be mocking his name and your points embody the antithesis of his writings) you have indeed some merit with your last sentence. Max Weber wrote about how the spirit of capitalism was derived from the protestant work ethic. (In very simple terms, those who worked hard had a predestined place for them reserved in the afterlife or heaven). Such a draconian value system should not have a place in our current society, given that we have reason and science as tools or weapons to counter dogma. However, now we are faced with neoliberalism that can easily be disreputed by the facts (poverty, inequality and environmental degradation are a testament to this). What the Left have not managed to shackle yet is the ideology of neoliberalism – an ideology of the ruling capitalist class, who currently dominate the political sphere, the media, and day-by-day are taking power away from the workers and the unions and increasing their means of production (capital, land and labour). It’s an ideology that is spreading and becoming the dominant one, if not so already. So already we on the Left are on the outer.

                The laymen follow this; blindly I’d say. They are told that hard work pays off. For some, hard work does. But for many, our pard work does not get rewarded. This is what we need people to see: I’m making profit for my employer. He’s (most likely a man given a patriarchal society) paying me a wage. But if I work harder for him, I’m earning him more money yet I’m not rewarded with a share of the profits even though it was my labour that produced this profit.

                We on the Left have a lot to think about.

          • POVERTY
            [pov-er-tee]
            noun
            1.
            the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor.
            Synonyms: privation, neediness, destitution, indigence, pauperism, penury.
            Antonyms: riches, wealth, plenty.
            2.
            deficiency of necessary or desirable ingredients, qualities, etc.:
            poverty of the soil.
            Synonyms: thinness, poorness, insufficiency.
            3.
            scantiness; insufficiency:
            Synonyms: meagerness, inadequacy, sparseness

            Yeah, definitely the right word. Karl Parx, I´m sorry to offend your sensibilities by not finding a word that fits your comfort zone, as we are not quite starving. We must be grateful for that! We are just really, really, really, financially and materially challenged. There you go, Karl. You can sleep better now, we won´t use the P word.

      • The focus on poverty is essential. Absolute poverty is what extreme wealthy is based on. Gross inequality is at the heart of environmentalism. The growing precariat is the result of thirty years of neoliberal policies which have made some people so incredibly wealthy that they are seriously undermining democracy throughout the world. This has enabled a huge rise in dirty politics and relentless campaigns to undermine everyone from health professionals and good eating advocates to teachers and scientists for whom the gathering of empirical evidence is no longer enough to change our perceptions. They now have to find new ways of educating us all in view of the fact that they are continually undermined by extreme wealth built on poverty. Get people out of poverty and they will start voting again………….

      • Have you ever read our sustainable business policy? Which includes, for small business:

        Promote simplifying compliance requirements for small businesses.

        Explore ways of increasing access to capital for small businesses, including providing tax deductions for investors.

        Encourage business-to-business local procurement practices.

        Encourage people to invest in local business lending either directly or via local organisations set up for this purpose, thus increasing availability of funds for small businesses.

        Support the expansion of local banking options (e.g. Building Societies, locally owned banks, ‘network’ organisations and micro-credit) and their provision of small business capital.

        Increase funding for training and mentoring programmes for people considering going into self-employment or small business as well as those already running their own business, with a particular focus on resourcing services provided by small business networks and community based organisations.

    • I couldn’t agree with you more. It was in part that which put me off voting for Labour. The country was screaming at them in those polls that they are doing something wrong and they completely ignored it and instead relied on their feedback from their own supporters. If you only talk to those already committed to your cause your not going to hear what the rest of the country thinks of your cause. The result was the grubbing left parties took in the election.

      The telling factor is that a number of electorates voted in Labour candidates even though the party vote for that electorate went to National. The really telling electorate was New Lynn, DC’s. This is the country saying we like left leaning people, but there was something off in left leadership.

    • Well you could equally ask why Labour can’t put a decent enough candidate up there to unseat him. And lots of Greens voted for the Labour candidate – even though many Greens have almost as much antipathy towards Labour as they do towards National.

  3. The responsibility for National getting around 48 percent and the conservative parties getting around 60 percent lies with those who voted for them. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. The Left shouldn’t beat itself up for the choices others make and turn on itself in anger.

  4. Derrin Richards . So , you said it a million times did you ? I see .

    It’s my earnest view , that like Australia , voting in NZ should be compulsory , as it is to enrol here . That way , we might be spared ignorant gibberish like yours . Voter apathy is a construct of neo liberal psychological methodologies to make sure that those whom they oppress for their profit can’t be arsed to vote because what’s the point ? They’re all the same . Might as well stay in bed on polling day . Depression rises from a sense of hopelessness and you , by your own hyperbole , spread that around like herpes . Keep it in your pants Derrin . Stop fiddling with it . If you can’t be arsed to vote , go and live in a country where they can’t vote . And while you travel to the airport , wave good bye to those soldiers who’s names are on the war memorials . Those kids who gave away their lives so as you can have an ignorant and frankly dangerous point of view . Enthusing non voting is ominously anti-democratic .

    • Heart-warming response there: I can see the converts lining up to be schooled further. I voted, don’t get me wrong, and lefty fwiw, but people who make a conscious decision to not vote are a reality, and entitled to their non-vote, and have been doing so without my herpetic fervour as far as I can tell.

  5. During the lead up to this election I posted several comments that were all voted down, and some told me I was dreaming.

    Two of the ones that come to mind were:

    1) Early voting numbers were up. I stated that just because they were early din’t necessarily translate into more votes. It just meant that people who normally vote on the Saturday probably got in earlier.

    2) I think I also stated a big turn out at IMP party party did not translate into votes. A lot of people, my nephew being one of them, went along for “the party” and not for the politics. Cheap or free alcohol will attract young people to anything.

    3) Polls are not something you can hang your hat on. Landline only, is now becoming an archaic mode of data gathering.

    Another thing is blogs and leader debates are preaching to the converted. Whether you read TDB, The Standard, WO or Kiwiblog most people have already made up their mind.

    Hopefully many people, media, politicians, voters can learn from this election and put into place positive campaigns working towards a better NZ.

  6. There is no single reason for national’s huge victory and even though a million not voting is a factor, its not the biggest problem. What is glaringly obvious is that in most electorates the party vote went to national; notable exceptions being the South Auck electorates and the Maori electorates. This raises a couple of questions. Did the Greens, Labour and IMP not really communicate the importance of the party vote? Is it possible that many voters still do not understand that the party vote is so important? If you wanted to change the government, why would people vote for a labour or green candidate, but give their party vote to national? It doesnt make sense. So many questions.

    • Maybe it tells Labour that either their policies did not appeal or they have the wrong people at the top?

      Nash won Napier on the back of saying he does not support amalgamation. That is a big issue for the people of Napier. Add that to the fact Walford had no personal appeal and you had the ingredients for the swing.

      It is time to rebuild with new blood.

      • The Greens need to position like NZFirst. i.e. can go in government with anyone without scaring the horses.

        Ditch the extreme aspects of your party, even if you believe in those positions. Let those people migrate to…well, it would have been Mana, but possibly a new far left party.

        Then, when you get in government, bring that party in, like National do with ACT.

        • The thing about Green Party policy though is it is determined through a democratic system by Green Party members.

          If they need to change their policy then it needs to come from the members.

          If you think there’s something horribly wrong with their policy then you are free to join and try to change it by convincing enough of the membership to your position.

          Green Party policy is a considered position of those Green Party members who participate in their democratic process.

          • All systems have positives and negatives.

            That system will ensure that most party members are aligned on policy. This helps build morale and makes everyone feel included.

            The downside is that people who join political parties are nothing like your average voter. So, it’s no wonder you’re stuck on 10%. You aren’t talking the language of the average voter because your rhetoric is coming from determined ideologues i.e. those prepared to join a party and vote on policy.

            That’s a marketing problem. You’re trying to sell something only one in ten wish to buy. The way to win is to figure out where the 1/10 and the 9/10 see eye to eye. Push those points, and do so using the language of the man in the street, not internal party language. Russel is getting better at this, but seems hamstrung by policy positioning.

            Your positioning is wrong because you’ll never have any leverage the way you’re doing it. Under MMP, there will *always* be a party gunning to fall in between National and Labour. That party has the leverage, and can lock you out.

            That party is listening to what voters want, THEN designing policy that fits that middle positioning. You’re doing it the other way around.

            So, do the Greens want to win, or is the aim to be a ginger group? Serious question.

  7. For the foreseeable future, the next left-of-centre government will be a Labour/Green coalition. As a Labour supporter who has voted for Labour in every election since 1975 I think this reality has to be embraced by both parties and turned from a weakness into a strength.

    In the election just past, Key made good use of the claim “they can’t agree on anything” and was able to appeal to New Zealander’s fear of “unstable Government” when referring to the prospects of a Labour/Green dominated government.

    To me, a formal Labour/Green agreement is now required that has, as it’s singular objective, a Labour/Green (or, in time, Green/Labour) majority coalition government.

    As a minimum, this agreement needs to embrace a commitment to arrive at an agreed common election platform where there is agreement between the parties. It also needs to include a formal commitment to cooperating strategically to replace the current government. This would not prevent the contest of ideas and development of separate policy platforms where no agreement can be reached between the two parties.

    Voters fear the prospect of a government internally devided. The left needs to counteract that fear by demonstrating that Labour and the Greens can work closely together for the common cause of a Labour/Green coalition government.

    • Agree. Problem is, Labour have made a habit of either cold-shouldering or skewering the Greens every chance they get. The Greens offered them the opportunity to present a united front this election and labour snubbed them, again.

      • As you can see from my blog, any antipathy between Labour and the Greens did not extend to many of the battle grounds. I hold my Labour colleague in very high regard. We worked together through the campaign, and the public and media responded very positively to that. I encouraged constituents to give their party vote to us and their candidate vote to her. Things can be a lot different on the campaign trail than what’s going on in the halls of Parliament.

      • as labour party member i couldnt agree more we cant fracture the vote we must work togeather like never before on as affective stratagey we do it with city vision in auckland we must do it at the national level as well we pick the best candate from either party if green runs in seat where labour does better then the greens run under labour where green banner does better a labour member will run under a green banner iwe should set up[ a proxy party in the moari seats to get seven more list mps we share all resourses volinteers activists we keep two serprate brands but the back room runs as one party

  8. Stop blaming voter apathy. Based on 2011 it looks as though turn out in this election stayed steady at around 75%. That’s about 10% higher than Britain has been averaging. We also have an enormous amount of people in this country who are living such precarious existences that they just don’t have the head space for voting and its implications. Blaming them for apathy is an insult. As a Green Party member I am so pissed off that our party’s candidates split the vote in Ohariu, Auckland Central and Christchurch Central. We need to be in much better dialogue with Labour before the next election. Sadly, the campaign posters that posed National as a finely tuned machine rowing in the same direction, and the left rowing against each other whilst the boat moved nowhere, were spot on.

  9. Stuart Nash did not win Napier. The National candidate, Wayne Walford lost when Conservative Party candidate Garth McVicar split the right vote, and took 7,135 votes away from him. If it hadn’t been for McVicar, Nash would have been trounced.

    It’s as simple as that.

    The actual results were;

    McVICAR, Garth: (Conservatives) 7,135

    NASH, Stuart: (Labour) 14,041

    WALFORD, Wayne: (National) 10,308

    http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2014/electorate-29.html

    • Yeah, if there was preferential voting in electorates, Wayne Walford would have got in with a small majority. That would most likely be a more accurate representation of voter sentiment.

      • I think that would’ve been quite likely, Shrubbery.

        The can see the preferential votes from rightwing voters like this;

        1. McVicar
        2. Walford
        3. NZ First candidate
        4. Nash
        5. etc

        When McVicar missed out, the votes would’ve dropped down to Walford. Result; National win.

  10. Not true frank, “If it hadn’t been for McVicar, Nash would have been trounced”

    You are more intelligent than this. I respect your writing. But I have deep roots in Napier and have to respond here.

    Stuart Nash is widely known in Napier and liked very much. He has given much for Napier and works tirelessly.

    The issues that divided Nash from McVicar are many but one thing in common link both. Crime, Nat’z killing Napier and closing down rail and Police station.
    McVicar stood on Crime.

    Nash stood on no amalgamation with Hastings which would close Napier police station. Walford had nothing but contempt for Napier.

    If Garth McVicar had not stood for crime Stuart nash would have received the crime Fighting voters with his opposition to the closure of the Napier police Station.

    So the fact that even with the McVicar element don’t assume Nat’s would’ve picked up all those 7000+ votes please as many in Napier including Bill Dalton Napier mayor were deeply concerned and a lot would have got left.

  11. We need our own media network other than our beloved TDB and Labour’s TS.

    Why cant TDB set up a petition for fundraising for an independent media TV/Radio network, say call it “South Pacific TV/Radio” or “Our voice”.

    This would give us leverage to begin a campaign to educate the public again as Channel 7 did to make us aware of the deep impact’s of any change coming, apart from the commercial spin we always get twisted by MSM.

    We could have guest appearance’s from notable folk such as we saw on Kim.Com meeting at Auckland town hall.

    Other weekly events such as debates with all Political Parties on policy with adequate panel members not Nat spin doctors only.

    Then we have Bomber Bradbury and Frank Macskasy , Brian Gould and a host of others from TS and elsewhere.

    A proper site placed Globally should capture pledges of considerable funding for a truly independent media channel that we would have had if Labour and co had have taken the election, so now can we build our own media, gee I will pledge $500.

    There are so many talented minds between all we see on these two blog sites and we have Campaign for better broadcasting also so what are we waiting for? now is the time to rebuild!

    • I 100% applaud that idea and have advocated that in a few of these threads.

      Particually radio.

      It is patently obvious we need a forum type medium that can reach large numbers and over time would slowly but surely become well known – with the advantage of minimum interference by biased MSM interlopers….there WE would call the shots.

      No more Hoskins , Plunket or Sabins with an agenda to derail. There we could have a medium for cohesiveness amongst the Left , entertainment , announcments of Left events, hell- even sports.

      Particually guest speakers , Left politicians , Economists in line with social democratic values – you name it.

      As a quirky aside…when Che Guevara was talking about conducting campaigns – he made great value of the importance of radio …to educate, desseminate and coordinate – in other words way back then and before radio was long valued for just those reasons….and the Left needs that desparately- the sooner the better.

      • I also strongly advise and advocate a true forum /assembly of Left partys to coordinate strategy so as to avoid this latest fiasco…..done on perhaps a bieannual basis. Moderation of the meetings can include a cross party board and an elected chair.

        You will only get cohesiveness through dialogue and an objective of cooperation.

        Its that simple.

        Overall straegies and observance of what tactics the Right are currently employing can be discussed and the counter to that can then be deployed….I think then you will see quite an effective united front develop.

        And after this election – the Left needs to start shifting gear and get cracking.

  12. If the Greens understood the real situation humans faced, and started trying to tell ‘the voters’ they would get even less votes, in fact they would have way way less people willing to stand, because even most of them couldn’t stomach the truth. Nothing is going to change for the good, people – including every politician are afraid of the truth, so we face extincting no if, buts, or maybes.
    The fact (again that word) that I get soooooo many thumbs down on my comments just confirms it all, – the people do not want to know.
    ‘You Tube’ 22 After, … now there I go again say enough not to get posted
    MOD: Shock, horror, it got posted. And it has up-votes. No more whinging about that will be tolerated.

    • According to Shopenhauer, all truth passes through three stages: first it is ignored/ridiculed; second it is vigorously opposed; third it is accepted as being obvious.

      Many people think that by clicking on a thumbs-down icon they can make truth go away.

      The mob at The Standard used to deal with truth-tellers by banning them…..and look where that got Labour.

      Green Party leadership is still dealing with fundamental truth -peak net energy, abrupt climate change, Ponzi economics- by ignoring it all……and look where that has got the Greens.

      The problem of National consolidating their power will soon be solved by all the factors all politicians ignore -peak net energy, abrupt climate change and Ponzi economics.

      Sit back and wait for the implosion. It’s underway, and will gather pace over the next 3 years.

    • Mod and Rachael
      I hate being the Grinch that stole Christmas, but once you’ve taken the red pill, and spent as many years as some of us have trying to inform some of the people we thought should give a bloody dam, with some really good well spelt out information, and seeing them just flat out ignore it, to the extent of going 100% in the opposite direction, at accelerating speed.
      I could give you several examples of the efforts I’ve gone to to inform our leaders, (prior to 2005), and examples of others, one guy spent $5,000.00 publishing and distributing 500 copies of his booklet, along with about 3 hours worth of information on DVD, he started @ John Key and worked his way down past most mayors, covered the whole steaming heap as it where. You are welcome to read his ‘essay’ if you like, remembering 500 copies given away http://oilcrash.com/articles/wilson08.htm
      I’m not trying to put myself on high by saying I’ve spent maybe $20K ? with about 14,000 DVDs and such given away, but pointing out that even with that effort, we are getting people believing that things like Kiwi Saver are even close to being a smart investment? they might as well invest in kilns. And what? 48% think roads are a smart idea, and most of the rest believe full employment, and equal purchasing power is going to save our collective soon to be fried arses 😉 And again sorry to harp on, but the fact the Labour wanted to make KS compulsory, did everyone miss that one?? again KS = holding a gun against the environment, and saying bleed bastard, we want our retirement pound of flesh.
      So yeah the truth sucks, nature doesn’t give a flying whatever about what side of the political spectrum, or economic strata we find ourselves, soon enough we are all going to be one class, the hungry, and kill or be killed.
      With National in we have just dropped down a gear and planted boot, we will borrow fictional money/energy to maintain the red line, just that little bit longer, but we can only do the Wile E. Coyote spinning in mid air trick for so long.
      But like I said no one really wants to discuss this stuff.

      • Sorry, pushing my luck here.
        Snowden et al are a bit of a smoke screen as well, along with GCSB and all this spying crap, okay it feels creepy and all that, but when reality comes and bites our collective butts, and the power grids go down (I’m sure the 5 eyes wouldn’t work very well with a few sticks stuck in them) the snoops along with everyone else are going to be in the dark. We will look back with regret that we didn’t prepare ourselves a bit more than we currently are.
        Where is your water coming from?

        • No we will be back to real spies, oh wait, they have done that as well. The GCSB have hired a lot of people to spy locally – so why have they done that, and why so many?

          This is how this works, (both left wing and right wing states do this – both are evil on this point) first you start to spy on the population to protect them, then you realise that they fucking despise you, then you crush them so they won’t rise up and kill you all.

          Spying on the population is a bad thing, it makes the rulers paranoid as all hell -then they start to ramp up that paranoia all round and bang! The gates of hell open up.

          Welcome to the 21st century.

  13. And theres the spin, voter apathy. Not the fact that the
    majority of people who voted rejected what labour was selling.

    • Actually Beasly I dare you to go into a working class area and ask why they didn’t vote. I think you will find they despise the lot of them, but most of all, they hate the bastards in charge.

  14. I believe Peter Dunne is right, within the next decade we could well see the Greens overtake the Labour Party to lead the opposition.

    If this is to happen, the Greens will have to find a way to connect with working-class voters in safe Labour seats. Failure to do so can only hurt voter turnout, while the recent European experience suggests the far-right could use the opening for a resurgence.

    Since Labour won’t go down without a fight, there is bound to be a lot more collateral damage from the refusal to form an alliance.

    We also shouldn’t forget that we are going through a very conservative period throughout much of the Western world. We need to get our act together so that when the tide does eventually turn, the left will be ready.

  15. Well the 1,000,000 non voters just became 1,000,001 because I’m not voting again ever. You are so focused on what you are doing that you fight more with the left than you do with the right. It is all a game and then you all toddle off to your middle class jobs and lifes after the election and say didn’t we do well and we will do better next time. For us at the very bottom who are about to get the shit kicked out of us again, all we see is a pack of idiots who are about as useful as tits on a bull.
    And one thing is sure to happen. The left will still be fighting with each other in three years time and this crap that the poor endures will continue. So curse on all your houses. You are all just a pack of self serving arseholes.
    MOD: You can make your point without all the swearing. The worst of it has been edited out.

    • Are you commenting on the right blog? There was not an drop of divisionist language in my blog. And tonnes of good vibes working together with other left candidates on the campaign trail.
      I can’t speak for every politician, but I can tell you that you are not talking to a middle classer with a cushy job. I too will ‘get the shit kicked out of me’ in the next 3 years.
      Overgeneralisations suck. Because you’re talking to a single mum, who is disabled, needs WINZ, lives in a HNZ house and works an insecure part time job.
      I too feel like rolling over and giving up, but I care about people like us way too much and would rather keep fighting.

      • The right blog. You missed the point completely. The complete lack of co- operation at a national level may sit well with the Greens and Labour parties but the constant cheap shots from both sides through the national media is like a cheap side show and is a massive turnoff for voters. I havn’t voted for 18 years since standing as a candidate for the Alliance in 1996 where I was appalled by the lack of empathy and compassion from some of the parties so called leading lights. Eighteen years on and I’m tempted back by the sound of a break from the old ways to find it is just more of the same. The parties are more interested in themselves than the people they want to represent. The needs of the party comes first , second and third. No working together with parties of the left to get rid of slimeballs like Dunn or Seymour or kept jewels like Hone. You stand for nothing except expediency and yet you have the gall to ask for my vote. In my mind your refusal to make accommodations with other parties on the left means you are no better than the people you are trying to replace. And in the meantime the bottom 30% take another hit because the left can’t get its act together. Plague on all your houses.

    • I hear you Mark. And I feel the same. This is a system rigged for the 1% to win, no matter who stands. It’s a system if it gave real power to working people – we’d change the bloody system.

      Over and again labour have sold working people down the river, Nash did it in 1935 when he put the fear of god up the labour party and they wimped out. The first labour government modified capitalism, took some of the sharp edges off – but left the body in place. This body was unleashed again if full, by the 4th labour government to ruin of working people.

      Capitalism is the enemy, it is greed, it is hate and it is destruction.

      There was a time when the left knew that – now they are basically a husk of it’s former self.

      The greens have tried I’ll give them that – but they lack spin, back bone and please excuse my next un PC comment – but they lack balls! An audit of labour’s economic plan, why the hell did you just not say a stone is a stone. Why did you not just say – the environment is buggered and this commitment to capitalism is going to kill all of our mokopuna.

      The truth has power – we have crossed the rubicon.

      I know many greens are nice people – actually that’s your biggest failing you think all people are nice people. Well guess what, that is not the case. The right in this country are committed to being as nasty as possible, they like winning and they like power. They don’t care – they are a bunch of hubristic, godless, fools who don’t care for the next generation, or indeed any generation, bar their own.

      The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The greens are nice lovely people who need to realise they are up against the beast of capitalism, and that sucker needs it’s head cut off, guttered, and burnt down to the ground.

      Racheal – you fight the good fight – and I deeply respect you for that – if I didn’t, I’d just keep my mouth shut and my finger off the keyboard.

      • Amen 100% Capitalism is dead without exploitation and now key has to exploit his version of trickle drown capitalism by using the middle class poor to again prop up the capitalist corpse.

        Then comes Corporatism welfare propped up with buckets of borrowed money again on the backs of our working middleclass poor and their grandchildren debt to pay for the next 20yrs.

        No magic in National’s policies, just borrowed money overseas till we are foreign owned to boot hill. Sorry the average Kiwi just cant see it.

  16. The left shot themselves in the foot, then each other in the head.Until they get rid of there austerity policies;i.e. running budget surpluses,they will not connect with the voters who didn’t vote.Labour is heading for minor party status.The greens and labour have to provide a united front and engage the non voter and listen to what they want and not impose policies they see as no different from national.If you were to find these people my guess debt would be their number 1 problem.Labour and the greens need to develop plans for when private debt implodes.[private debt is 146% of g.d.p. this is disaster waiting to happen.] Then you will see wealth transfer to the top that will make your eyes water.The reason Key is where he is today is because of his mastery of the ponzi scheme.As Con the fruiter would say good luck to you and your family.

  17. The noisiest sign of this determined mood is me blasting the house with Rage Against The Machine’s Battle for Los Angeles. Fitting, I feel!! Lyrics just as relevant today as they were then. Y’kinda need a bit of musical reinforcement at times like this.

    I know what you mean, Rachel. I listen to Murray Gold’s “Dr Who” music. Uplifting, especially against all odds, when things seem darkest…

  18. I have a plan. The left take the North Island and self-govern. The right take the South Island and self-govern. Or vice-versa on the islands, that´s just semantics. The left will do just fine, trading their labour for a fair day´s pay and caring for their neighbour. Meanwhile on the “right” island all hell will break loose when they try to figure out who the hell is going to clean the office toilets. Ha Ha! The point is, (yes I have one), they need us more than we need them. Opting out of their system is probably the only way it can go in the end. This can be started in small ways by being as self-sufficient as you can and trading some of your labour with family and friends. It´s a start.

  19. I know it’s early days but do we have any idea where the votes went instead? Clearly it wasn’t Labour or Internet-Mana. Obviously a fair number didn’t vote at all but I know a lot of people who voted Green instead of National or Labour who they had previously supported (anecdotal I know but I would have thought it was indicative of wider opinion). NZ First managed to do well out of the Dirty Politics saga, why didn’t the Greens?

Comments are closed.