Why the Green Party should not go to the centre

53
7

Screen Shot 2014-09-28 at 8.06.37 am

Since the election many commentators have argued that the Greens are too left-wing and the party would do better if it moved to the political centre.

Most of these commentators endorse the Greens’ strong environmental stance, but say the party’s social and economic policies are too radical.

On the positive side, such comments implicitly recognise the success Greens have had in raising environmental consciousness among New Zealanders.

But they also show that developing environmental awareness is not always accompanied by an appreciation of the radical social and economic measures required to deal with the ecological crisis. Gareth Morgan’s views illustrate the point. He argues for a blue-green party which “must be centre, its policies must be palatable to either National or Labour.”

However, a truly green party can’t avoid taking stands to the left of both Labour and National when both those parties are reluctant to bring to heel the main corporate despoilers of our environment.

Why shouldn’t the Greens be to the left of Labour and National when both parties:

  • support deep-sea drilling which threatens our coastal environment and, if successful in finding oil, contributes to global warming.
  • have allowed New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions to increase through weak emissions trading schemes.
  • support trade and investment agreements (like the Trans-Pacific Partnership) that will allow non-New Zealand corporates to weaken our environmental protections.
  • support the Five Eyes spying network, which enables the US and UK governments, in particular, to spy on its political adversaries, which include environmental campaigners.
  • propose transport budgets with too little expenditure on environmentally friendly public transport, cycling and walking.

Contrary to what many critics are saying, Green policies on social justice, peace and human rights reinforce rather than detract from the party’s environmental stance.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Critics of the Greens commonly see politics through a “two-party” lens, even though we are now seven elections into a proportional MMP system. Twenty eight percent of the electorate has just voted for parties other than National and Labour. The percentages for both National and Labour might continue to decline, as they did in this election (compared with with 2011). We are moving towards a European-style multi-party parliament where several parties (including the Greens) end up as significant players. It is not helpful for any of the (presently) smaller parties to be seen as clip-ons to either Labour or National.

Right from the time greens first entered New Zealand politics, as the Values Party in 1972, they have never seen themselves as a clip-on environmental party. The Greens actually have a more comprehensive approach to the critical human and environmental problems than either Labour or National. On quite a few issues Labour has a dollar each way, not wanting to offend, on one side, progressive minded people, and on the other side, the corporate establishment.

The Greens were right to advocate for a Labour-Green government, because Green policy overlaps more with Labour’s than National’s. But this doesn’t mean Parliament is divided simply into those that are with National and those who side with Labour. To think this way is contrary to the ethos of a multi-party political system. The Greens should be willing to work equally with all parties when there is common policy ground. On some issues this means working with National. On others it can mean working across the spectrum with smaller parties, however “right” or “left” they may be. In 2007, when I was a Green MP, I organised a press conference with ACT, United Future and the Maori Party which succeeded in pushing a hesitant Labour-led government to abolish the sedition laws. The Greens ability to do this sort of thing is enhanced if its MPs act respectfully and collegially with all other MPs including, this term, the leaders of the National, ACT, United Future and the Maori Party.

The beauty of the a diverse, multi-party MMP parliament is that most New Zealanders now believe they are being represented by a party which has views close to their own (although those who voted Conservative or Internet Mana will now feel left out, because our party vote threshold is too high).

A Green move to the centre in pursuit of Cabinet posts would betray all those who have just voted for the party’s left-of-Labour policies. The nearly 11% who voted Green would no longer be properly represented in Parliament. That would be a big blow to the credibility of MMP.

A Green move to the centre would also slow down progressive change, including protection for the environment. The ultimate driver of good change via Parliament is not the composition of a Cabinet but public opinion. New Zealand didn’t turn its back on mining the conservation estate because the right people were in a National cabinet. Public criticism, which Green MPs helped mobilise in protests, was the primary factor. Which party would be there to argue against New Zealand getting involve in America’s Middle Eastern wars (environmentally destructive among other things) if the Green Party shifted towards the political centre?  Both National and Labour, to their shame, committed special forces to Afghanistan, and support America’s new bombing campaign in Iraq. The Green Party has a vital peace advocacy role, on behalf of a big chunk of New Zealanders.

New Zealand will be poorly served if all its parliamentary parties try to crowd the centre, largely upholding the status quo and not adequately addressing the real social, economic and environmental problems that we face.

53 COMMENTS

  1. Thank you Keith – well said. This trend from commentators is looking like a well organised campaign to make the Greens nervous. Most of the writing coming from those who enjoy privilege and do not see the need for any social justice agenda.

    • Agreed …great post!

      ….and I think the week before the election, journalists saying the Greens wanted to go into coalition with National, lost the Greens a lot of votes in the Election

      …many voters were quite alarmed and cast their votes elsewhere

      • and I think the week before the election, journalists saying the Greens wanted to go into coalition with National, lost the Greens a lot of votes in the Election

        Which was probably the point.

    • From what I’ve seen it’s all coming from National and seems to be about limiting the Greens to be only about the environment so that the Big Boys can get on with doing the serious stuff like the economy while the Greens keep nicely in the place that the Big Boys have set aside for them. It’s got very authoritarian overtones in it.

  2. Even Tui had the great rorter summed up. The Hutt Road (Wellington) billboard at one stage not too long ago: ‘Shh, I’m trying to listen to Gareth Morgan …. Yeah right.’

  3. i don’t see a stand on environmental issues as being to the left of any political party, in my opinion it’s simply a stand for what’s left of the planet.

    • ^ Yep- and a common sense movement away from the dark ages of barbarism whereby we ‘need’ a big brother hierarchy system of the 1 % lording it over the other 99%.

      Good Grief !!!……we’ve moved away from the tribal chief system , past the city state autocracy , we DON’T live in a medieval feudal culture with Kings and peasants , hell !!…we don’t even live in the 19th century of Industrial barons and autocrats…..

      So why the hell do we keep carrying on as if we are little children who even need most of these morons in parliament. Most of em talk shit, constantly lie to us , hardly ever deliver for the community’s that voted em in for….yet we defer to them and call them leaders !!

      They are self interested , self important , egotistical , greedy little parasites who revel in their social positions and love having people feel disempowered by that position WE voted them to have.

      Their scum.

      We don’t want the Greens to follow that formula. Don’t want it – don’t need it.

      And while we’re at it…that’s also WHY we need party’s like InternetMana….because they are the antithesis of all that shit.

      • Good Grief !!!……we’ve moved away from the tribal chief system , past the city state autocracy , we DON’T live in a medieval feudal culture with Kings and peasants , hell !!…we don’t even live in the 19th century of Industrial barons and autocrats…

        If we give National, Act, UF, Māori Party and the CCCP enough time in government we will do.

    • “i don’t see a stand on environmental issues as being to the left of any political party…”

      unfortunately taking this view is naive because the Green issues come smack up against BIG BUSINESS interests! ( eg dairying pollution of NZ waterways)

      …remember how paranoid John key and Nactional were several years ago about Green activism compromising national economic security

      …Greens were regarded as a big threat to NZ economic interests…and given as the reason for spying on New Zealnders

      …it is only recently with intelligent right wingers voting Green that the Nacts have come to realise that the Greens arent going away …the situation is more urgent than ever

      …and so the right wing have decided to try and incorporate the Greens into their brand ( eg Matthew Hooton) and dilute them into blue/green ( contradiction in terms)

      • You may well be correct in calling my view naive, Seagull, however, I would suggest that relying on right wing “BIG BUSINESS interests” to not destroy our environment could also be classed as naive. As you are probably aware, blue/green is likely to be no more than a green wash.

      • Hooton (on Bomber’s tv programme last year) appeared to be a climate change denier, so is that ok with the ‘blue greens’ then ?

  4. I’ve been voting Greens the last few elections and the fact that they’re a ‘full party’ with a comprehensive set of policies, rather than just an ‘environmental’ party is one reason. In fact, I started voting Greens after looking at every party’s policies and coming to the conclusion that they were the ones that best understood chronic disease.

    I think a move to a more ‘one issue’ style party would indeed be taking ten steps back, moving further back into FPP territory where they would just be a clip on party.

    • Yeah, I think a lot of people don’t realise that Green ideology doesn’t simply equal some sort of broad tendency toward “environmentalism”. It argues that a much more fundamental ‘root-and-branch’ transformation of society and the way we do things is necessary.

      Keith also hits the nail on the head when he argues that: “A Green move to the centre in pursuit of Cabinet posts would betray all those who have just voted for the party’s left-of-Labour policies”. Over the last couple of decades, the New Zealand Election Study (essentially a very detailed Opinion Poll carried out during each Election) has asked respondents to place themselves on a Left-Right ideological spectrum where 0 = Most Left and 10 = Most Right. In every single NZES study since the Greens broke away from the Alliance in the late 90s, Green voters have (collectively) placed themselves to the Left of Labour voters.

      In 2011, for instance (the latest Election for which this data is available), Labour voters averaged 4.2, while Green voters averaged 3.7 (with Mana voters very close on 3.5). National supporters, meanwhile, were up on 6.6 – well to the Right of the Greens’ core constituency.

  5. I’m sorry what, Keith? WHAT? Have I missed something? Where were you during the election campaign? Jesus wept. I’m stunned.

    But anyway, people who think every party should retain their name, but be, in essence, The National Party…. that speaks for itself doesn’t it? It goes far beyond “anti-intellectualism” or even anti-Left, and enters into gleeful self-destruction. Any day now I expect to see people in the street banging their heads against buildings in an effort to speed up the process. This isn’t politics, New Zealand has caught a collective psycho-pathological disease.

    How far Left or Right does a person have to go to find a Party with integrity?

    • How far Left or Right does a person have to go to find a Party with integrity?

      There’s none on the right-wing.

  6. if you scale down the human race collectively to a family living in a house,
    you have young old able bodied, the key – right wing – presidential dictatorship elitist ect ideologies you have certain able bodied individuals that want to claim more resources power etc than the others, there may be vying for power, one may get the upper hand and form a group against the others, the young are seen as potential assets to be trained in service of the ones in power, the old are seen as non productive, etc I wont go into all the various issues 🙂 it is a self destructive system, even the ones so called in power destroy themselves the young arent cared for properly for one thing, when the ones in power get old, they in turn become a problem to the young trained in such a system.
    conversely, a sane, non psychopathic natural system that works for everyone, where everyone can thrive, is to care for the elderly, empower the young to be self sufficient, the ones that arent good at gathering food, may be ideal at caring for others, teaching, any amount of things, I wont go into all the details to much, if you contemplate the 2 scenarios, its self evident who is who and where it leads

  7. The Greens should be willing to work equally with all parties when there is common policy ground.

    We actually need this for all parties so that parliament becomes government rather than government being a set subset of parliament.

    The ultimate driver of good change via Parliament is not the composition of a Cabinet but public opinion.

    Which is why we need a better way for people to make their opinion known and, with modern communications technology, we can do that.

    • If the Greens really want to work with all parties when there is a common policy ground, they shouldn’t be making deals with any Party, left or right. They should stay on the cross benches and vote for, or against every Bill as it arises. I thought that was what parliament was all about.
      The comment about a better way for people to make their opinion known, through modern communications technology, is what attracted me to IMP, and is why it would be a travesty if IMP was allowed to die. Ideally the internet should allow democratic involvement in every decision. Of course that would end the Party political system, which would be a good thing.

  8. Both animal welfare and environmental protection are stronger in a more equal society, showing the strong link between social and environmental justice.

    Some “goods” are better in wealthier countries, because initiatives like setting up bird reserves require lots of money. However, most environmental protection involves reduction of harm, such as restricting the power of industry to pollute the air and water and destroy habitat. These initiatives are stronger in more equal societies, probably because there are fewer power disparities.

  9. I think most of the commentators advocating a shift to the right for the Greens don’t actually understand what the Green Party is about. They’re stuck commenting on politics like it’s a sports tournament so we should probably just ignore them

      • The Greens are probably the most realist party in parliament. National are completely deluded and Labour isn’t much better.

        These facts contradict you assertion.

  10. The misconception that the Green Party is anti-business, big or otherwise, should be challenged. The Greens are against exploitative business practices. Social, economic and environmental sustainability are inextricably entwined and require long-term, equitable strategies that maximise the well-being of human communities and environmental resources. The Green Party is the only one that has a comprehensive, rational vision that addresses this.

  11. My suspicion is that “commentators” who are pushing for the Green to “move to the centre” are using that as code. What they really mean is that they want the Greens to adopt centre-right economic policies that do not threaten the current market-oriented consensus.

    In reality, those “commentators” wouldn’t vote for the Greens anyway. They’re too busy ticking *National* or *ACT* on their ballot papers.

    Which indicates that that the Greens are doing something right if certain elements in society feel sufficiently threatened and are trying to push them to the right.

    Funny… those same “commentators” have yet to suggest that ACT (or even National) moves closer to the center.

    • My suspicion is that “commentators” who are pushing for the Green to “move to the centre” are using that as code.
      Absofuckinlutely.

    • If the ‘commentators’ want a ‘green’ party with centre right economic policy, then they should set one up. The Greens do seem to have plateaued in terms of electoral support, so I guess they face a choice, become more ‘populist’, or stand on their principles. I’m picking most of their supporters would prefer the latter.

      • It does seem that the Greens have plateaued at 10-12% in the current political situation but they must hold true to their principles. Their reward for doing so will come in 2017 (if you are an optimist) or 2020 when an inevitable swing against National towards a, hopefully, rejuvenated centre left will occur.

  12. I don’t think the Greens should move to the centre (they’ll lose my vote if they do), but I do think there’s room for an environmental party on the right. There seem to be a lot of National voters who’d like to protect the environment while retaining centre-right economic policies (as oxymoronic as that may be). It would be nice if they had a party they could vote for, that would at least keep National slightly honest when it comes to their destruction of the environment, and maybe illustrate some of the contradictions in that approach. I don’t think it’d steal any votes from the actual Greens; it would pretty much all come from National and maybe NZF.

  13. Agree. All the issues are inter related and I can’t see where you draw the line – climate change, environment depletion, pollution and the end of cheap available fossil fuels are all related and symptoms of the present global ‘pyramid’ financial system – which produces winners and losers = inequality and is measured by the flawed GDP. Global evidence proves that moving to renewable has provided more jobs than fossil fuel industry as well as cleaner environment. Aren’t all these policies related, make sense and are what the Greens are aiming for. Someone has to keep these voices strong and in the public ear.

  14. Thanks Ketih
    As you know there is a significant body of opinion that says the Greens can “frame” and “position” themselves differently wihout compromising on policy.

    It might have improved the Green vote to “position” themselves along the lines that Winston Peters used; ie by saying we can work across the spectrum within MMP to get good Green outcomes. Vernon Tava wrote a blog along not disimilar lines

    It would be interesting to hear your views on that.

  15. BLUE-GREENS

    RED-GREENS

    GREEN-GREENS

    Ah Grashoppas the idea of moving the greens to the center right to capture a soft blue vote seems plausible at face value , but is it really such a great match in terms of their political fundamentals ?Not really .

    Rod Oram claims we can still have full throttle corporate capitalism provided we leave fossil fuels , stop global warming ,and go from a high carbon economy to a low carbon economy .We can have it all.The all new Blue-Green party.

    But does the neoliberal endless growth model really sort all environmental problems ? No it does not.

    More population growth , = more urban growth = more consumptive growth = more environmental destruction,even if the world doesn’t heat up .

    Endless population growth means we need more palm oil ,more fish , more Amazonian beef and that means less rain forest and the extinction of countless plant and animal species all for more profit .No more wild polar bears ,tigers, orangutans and a few thousand other extinct species just so we can have a margarine mono culture for the next 20 billion humans .

    The whole world needs to move from an unsustainable endless and exponential “growth model” of economics to a new green ” limits model “.

    It is logically impossible have infinite growth in a finite world , so the very foundation of western economics is flawed from the outset .Its successful conclusion is the destruction of a habitable planet . This is described as ” Progress ” .

    We need a new vision of ” Progress ” that saves the planet not destroys it.

    To save the world and its ecosystems, we need lower population growth , to consume less ,to eat less ,to use less energy and find a sense of contentment and clarity by having fewer material possessions not more . Its not “stagnation ” its “global equilibrium ”

    None of this helps increase corporate profits on wall street for the richest 1%. Its the philosophical opposite.

    So the Blue -Greens is not a marriage made in heaven ,its a sham political wedding ,a drunken punch up on the honey moon and a very nasty divorce .

    Red-green ,or green -green has integrity , but blue-green is like the new Mana-Act party .or putting chipolatas and tomato sauce on a pavlova.

    Philosophically it just doesn’t work .

    • Well said Black Lemming. Oram probably got his vision of the future from watching The Jetsons. But the problem remains how to change basic human nature which has been reasonably consistent since Og wanted a bigger cave. I fear only a catastrophe will do it.

    • Oh if you mature you move from the left do you. I have become more and more left wing as I grow older – I don’t see the right as doing anything about kids in poverty, but more about bashing the parents who are in many instances working numerous jobs for very little money.

  16. For too long now The Greens have been un necessarily forced to be the ‘also rans’ in varying degrees. To the party’s credit, it strengthened its resolve often allowing for it to be very vocal and strident in tone regards its esp environment agenda. With the deserved strength it has now gained to the extent that it realistically now has a huge opportunity to influence the level of debate on important policy and legislation, will the weight of this onus collapse in the heat of political reality? One hopes not. Were this to happen it would mean thousands of Green voters left orphaned and disenfranchised, much like the Labour Party seeking only power, has abandoned the very people who put their voting faith in them and was up until now the reason for their existence. Let wise counsel prevail in the Greens even if it means allowing for more freedom to express dissenting or divergent views within the party grassroots. While managing freedom is not easy, in the long term it will be the bulwark against extraneous influences. Good going guys. All the very best-always!

      • Ha!…..34-35 years ago they probably would have been part of Muldoons cabinet- that’s how dangerously right wing this country’s gotten…..

        Global neo liberalism = readjusting power and wealth for the 1% ‘Born to Rule ‘ fuckwits.

  17. Aroha Keith,

    We e-mailed the Green MP’s the following question which they have not answered. Perhaps you’d care to answer.

    We heard Russell’s interview with Willie Jackson and we are wondering exactly what you found “crazy” (or “stupid”) about what Glenn Greenwald, Edward Snowden, Julian Assange,Robert Amsterdam or Laila Harre had to say at the “Moment of Truth” meeting?

    Thanks,
    Jeff and Karen Hay

    • I know that at the time Russel said he learnt more from the ‘Moment of Truth’ about what is going on in the security’? (silly name) agencies than anything he is involved in in parliament. I am sure he wouldn’t for a moment think that the expose was wrong more that he doesn’t want Dotcom’s involvement, and the fact that Dotcom didn’t reveal info on how Key knew about Dotcom before he said he did. Of course no one else said they would get all these people together to tell it all. I was lucky enough to be there on the night and thought it was great, but where are the media now, why haven’t they tracked down where the NSA have their spying network on the North Shore. I think Campbell Live is following this up, but it is overall for the MSM pretty pathetic.

    • I thought the Greenwald, etc. meeting was a highlight of the year. A great and informative meeting. I’m think Greens who attended would think the same (I don’t have any official position in the Greens. I am just an ordinary member.)

      • ‘ The prophet is never accepted in his own town/country’…..

        Yeah…. and all the arsewipes who figuratively tried to stone Mr Kim Dotcom , Assange , Greenwald , Amsterdam , and Snowden….

        Just goes to show…how thin skinned, controlled and mislead so many in this country are that they cannot endure the truth.

        They prefer ignorance and darkness like braindead zombies.

  18. The whole green/environmental movement has become so extremely political that it is now impossible to determine where genuine enviromental concerns end and socialist politics masquerading as enviromental concerns begin. The ‘cure’ for AGW is a socialist’s wet dream and the movement is inextricably linked with left wing anti-capitalism objectives. The Greens can never move away from the political fringe on the left, and can therefore never have a political alliance with any party on the centre-right (or even the centre) and with Labour looking a spent force for the foreseeable future the Greens are stuck in noise-making irrelevance and activism – which is what they are best at and probably what they are happiest doing.

  19. Why shouldn’t the Greens be to the left of Labour and National when both parties:
    *lists a whole bunch of not-particularly left/right aligned issues*

  20. Let’s ALL stand in the centre, in the middle, and sing “Kumbaya”! together! Come on Mr Key, you can kick things of!!

    • No way – you could not endure the off-Key sound for more than 5 minutes.

      Besides the clanging of pitchforks in the distance getting closer and closer would put paid to anything Key tried to lead by way of song.

  21. OMG !

    Are we politico – geeks ! ?

    We point and discuss and yet do nothing . Thus , nothing much is achieved .

    I say . Rampage ! After a cup of tea yeah ? Gingernut anyone ?

    Not after 10.30 pm though . Otherwise Armour Guard will come and tell us off . Only in wonderful , beautiful , fantastic , extraordinary New Zealand could this be happening . Our most strident political dissent is represented as a few course words on an internet Blog Site . We are so , so lucky . You seen those crazy fuckers fighting I.S . ? Leaning into the recoil of a heavy machine gun . I mean ? WTF ? Pieces of people litering the streets ? For all that we are , and for all that we are not . We are lucky , lucky people .
    Sorry , a drunken moment of thanks . x

  22. The only ‘co-opting’ of centralist policies that all Left parties should consider is this: Redefine our new middle class. The entry point for the top tax bracket needs to be re-evaluated, or an extra higher tier introduced, that avoids our new middle class.

    A top tax rate starting at $70K squarely targets what is now lower middle, to middle class salaried workers (depending on whether you are the sole income earner for your family, and housing costs in your location). This is a very cunning strategy to lump the very wealthy elite with our new middle class. The wealthy elite don’t have to oppose increases to the top tax rate, the middle class will do it form them, in mass. This ultra effective form of social control has no doubt assisted National in laughing all the way back into power, along with the purse strings controlling them.

    A family of four living in a comfortable family home in Auckland, paying for schooling, insurances, student loans, transportation, appropriate retirement savings, and large mortgages (with risk due to variable interest rates, or face much higher rates for locking in long term security) could easily burn through 250K plus a year. In NZ, they are well and truly in the top tax bracket, and no allowance is made for the number of dependents (including a single income source supporting a stay at home partner or parent), mortgages, or giving priority to reduce student debt levels. Either the top tier taxation needs to avoid targeting these families, or they need to be able to claim tax deductions for the number of dependents (including supporting elderly family members, and/or partners at home), mortgages on their primary family home, and other expenses in the social interest (such as health insurance or health related expenses). Anyone who actually needs a mortgage to live in their own home doesn’t constitute the wealthy elite in my mind, and they don’t constitute part of an upper-middle demographic that many would have previously catagorised them in. NZ needs to get smarter about this, and stop targeting the new middle class in a pecuniary manner; it is short-term thinking.

    Hence, to the Greens: a flat 40% rate for 140K is too high, to soon, and you’re alienating many families who are trying to get themselves to some level of financial security. I think the election has shown that you’re not winning them over on social and environmental justice alone, even if they believe in these issues. You need to not give them a reason to not vote against you.

    So, at what level of income does a family start having a serious surplus, and be less likely to vote against higher tax rates for some? I’m putting it out there (and will no doubt get some criticism over it) that I’m guessing that a combined family income in excess of 250-300K per year is the new sweet spot where extra taxation is highly unlikely to change standard of living in any measurable capacity. Middle NZ will often vote against a party if they fear a tax rise. I think that many people begrudgingly voted for National, as they perceived that this would be less impact to their pocket book. The left will never get the opportunity to re-educate this demographic on issues of social justice and their ultimate long-term economic benefit, if they are always in opposition. The mainstream media will see to that.

    So, if you’re going to do something. Please co-opt the new middle class, target them in droves, and let’s actually start turning some real wheels towards a fairer and more just society. But, you have to be in power first.

Comments are closed.