“A LEAP OF FAITH”, that’s what Greens co-leader Marama Davidson is said to have scribbled on her note-pad. She’s quite right. Entering into negotiations with a Labour Party that doesn’t need you is, indeed, a leap of faith. Davidson and her co-leader, James Shaw, are betting everything on Jacinda Ardern and her colleagues being serious about “rebuilding better” in the wake of Covid. They are hoping that by aligning their party with Labour’s efforts, the progressive alliance required to secure a third term for the centre-left will be ready, three years from now, to advance the Green agenda much further and faster.
It’s called “taking the long view”, and Davidson and Shaw should be applauded for demonstrating such an impressive degree of political maturity. How much easier it would have been to recommend taking up residence on the cross-benches to the Green Party membership. Not only would moving into Opposition absolve the Greens of all responsibility for making this government work, but it would also allow them to declaim without restraint from what they believed to be the moral high ground.
But, it would not be the moral high ground. That title belongs to the place where people with very different ideas and priorities nevertheless agree to make a positive and co-ordinated effort to advance their common objectives. These people are committed to making as much progress as possible in a political environment consistently hostile to making any progress at all. The moral high ground is not the place where increasingly incendiary slogans are shouted, it’s the place where progressives have the best prospect of winning over fundamentally conservative voters to the planet’s cause. Not all conservatives, of course, but enough of them to make a third electoral victory for the centre-left in 2023 a viable project.
At the very heart of this project lies the insight vouchsafed to me by my late uncle, the Revd. Peter Marshall. In the finest liberal Presbyterian tradition, he argued that: “Humankind is neither wholly corrupt, nor wholly unredeemable.” Most people are susceptible to reasoned arguments persuasively presented. Even those who start out holding fast to an unequivocal proposition can be worn down by constant – and principled – presentations.
I’ve seen this happen many times over the years. Throughout the 1970s, a solid majority of New Zealanders subscribed to the notion that sport and politics didn’t mix. At the beginning of 1981 most Kiwis wanted the Springbok Tour to proceed. By 1984, however, public opinion had shifted decisively against any further contact with Apartheid-era South Africa. A similar shift in public opinion occurred in relation to LGBTQ rights. In 1986 over 800,000 people signed a petition asking Parliament to reject the Homosexual Law Reform Bill. Five years later most New Zealanders struggled to recall what all the fuss had been about.
It’s long, slow, patient work, this wearing-away of entrenched opposition, but history is unequivocal in judging it to be the most effective means of bedding-in change. It’s what Jacinda Ardern means when she argues that the only change worth having is “change that sticks”.
If conservative New Zealanders require further convincing about the steps required to fulfil this country’s commitment to fighting climate change, then convince them. That won’t happen if all the Greens do is shout at them, and/or damn them as enemies of the planet. It might happen, however, if someone is willing to make the case for change in the way most likely to make change happen. The ‘someone’ best placed to do that in the newly-elected Parliament is James Shaw. Presumably, that’s why Jacinda Ardern is offering to make him her Minister for Climate Change.
Those members of the Green Party who would rather their parliamentary representatives adopted a purely oppositional stance – from the cross-benches – should consider how that will look to the broader electorate. In the minds of many voters it will lump them in alongside the National Party, which, in an attempt to lure back its lost rural and provincial voters, will very likely take up a position hostile to all meaningful attempts to respond to climate change.
Nothing could assist National more effectively in this reactionary endeavour than a strident and ultra-radical Green Party. Nothing helps the Right’s effort to portray the Greens as a party of dangerous extremists like behaving like a party of dangerous extremists! Moreover, for those rural and provincial voters disposed to support “Jacinda”, the unrelenting negativity of National and the Greens will lead them to conclude that they are merely obverse sides of the same extremist coin. The only winners in this scenario would be Jacinda and Labour: the voices of moderation and reason.
Another reason for the Green Party membership to support a collegial “co-operation agreement” with Labour is the likelihood of climate change itself making the most compelling arguments for radical and comprehensive reform. If the rising number and increasing seriousness of extreme weather events are allowed to set the scene for “Middle New Zealand”, then the Greens, in partnership with Labour, can present themselves as the party of solutions – not the pedlars of problems. Sometimes, reality should simply be allowed to speak for itself.
In spite of it being a horrible example of corporate-speak, the expression “direction of travel” may turn out to be the key to Labour-Green relations over the next three years. James Shaw and Marama Davidson – in sharp contrast to Winston Peters and Shane Jones – campaigned in 2020 as Labour’s staunch and reliable ally. They were rewarded with an increased share of the Party Vote. It would be a colossal mistake to execute a 180-degree turn away from that strategy. By marching alongside Labour, the Greens will be marching in step with the majority. And just because that majority rewarded Labour with the ability to govern alone in 2020, doesn’t mean that it will feel obliged to do the same in 2023.
If the Greens spend the next three years proving themselves trustworthy, then the chances of them being entrusted with more power by the electorate in 2023 must, surely, be greater than if they spend all that time attacking Jacinda’s government and shouting themselves hoarse?
…’Nothing could assist National more effectively in this reactionary endeavour than a strident and ultra-radical Green Party. Nothing helps the Right’s effort to portray the Greens as a party of dangerous extremists like behaving like a party of dangerous extremists! Moreover, for those rural and provincial voters disposed to support “Jacinda”, the unrelenting negativity of National and the Greens will lead them to conclude that they are merely obverse sides of the same extremist coin’…
———————————
Agreed. Someone said the art of politics is ‘compromise’. Well, that suits the long game, not the short one that can easily be overturned. All movements come to an age of maturity whereby it loses its more radical edge, the reason for that is the need to appeal to a broader populace. The smart operator is the one who goes the distance and eventually see’s through their objectives. Like abolishing the slave trade for instance,.. it took many wars, much legislation and much changing of attitudes to abolish it. At least legally and in principle. Its the long term impact that matters.
The cross benches would not be wise for the Greens.
WK
The cross benches may not be wise for the Greens, however neither would be being seen as a total doormat. I have found that many political commentators have been very quick to ascribe particular intentions to GP voters since the election. Personally, I think that no deal is preferable to one that limits the GP MPs ability to represent the GPs policies in parliament, without some countervailing benefit. But I also trust the negotiations to proceed in good faith.
Is it still tomorrow, after the final (pre-recount) results are published, that there is an announcement due about the details of any potential agreement? Trotter’s speculation based on four scribbled words is actually one of the more fact grounded speculations I have seen so far.
Knowing the referenda results (& final party numbers) seems crucial to any GP/LP agreement. Particularly for the cannabis referendum, which might be slightly under 50%, so be heading back for redrafting. Lots of focus on ministerial positions, not so much on select committee construction.
The Greens will always get 5% just because they have the name Green. Just saying.
Or could it be the Green ministers are grounded unlike many from National and some from Labour whose arrogance either constantly sees them in trouble or has them sacked.
Remember Smith, Woodhouse and Brownlee are still in parliament with their history, yet just because there attached to National.
“If the Greens spend the next three years proving themselves trustworthy, then the chances of them being entrusted with more power by the electorate in 2023 must, surely, be greater than if they spend all that time attacking Jacinda’s government and shouting themselves hoarse?”
Yes that makes perfect sence, but the current greens executed the three most “trustworthy” examples they had during the last three years didn’t they?
https://www.interest.co.nz/news/89190/green-party-mps-kennedy-graham-and-david-clendon-quit-reportedly-protest-co-leader-tureis
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/kevin-hague-quits-greens-for-forest-and-bird/IYPI2IWCG2LYIIPNN3LKNWPQ7Y/
Remember when Green Party MPs Kennedy Graham and David Clendon quit and also Kevin Hague and now Gareth Hughes so senior male MP’s seem to be the vitims from changes inside this almost all young famale party, so dont be surprised to see even more ‘blod letting during this next term of parliament as thhat is a great leap of faith.
That is a false assumption to make with the changing demographics over the next 3 years and increasing Green party membership . With the Green party picking up membership from all age groups as the center parties refuse to move from the softly softly as more and more people become buried under the neo liberal landslide that has totally destroyed our public services .
Yes. Plus legalising recreational marijuana issues helped them this time, just as Covid did Labour.
Well I once imagined that when we got MMP, decision making would move out of party caucus and onto the floor of parliament.At least to some extent.
In that context I don’t quite see that not being in formal coalition has to mean being in diametric opposition on all issues that come up. I don’t see why they could not support and contribute to legislation they believe in just as they would if part of the government.
Are they really loosing anything by retaining independence ? It seems like no one expects parliament to be anything but a pantomime , and all the real decisions made in private. No doubt this is to a large degree the case, but I don’t think it should be the case, and would be much less the case if the Greens retain their independence.
D J S
D J S
Ditto David. I recall explaining to my aged parent, that MMP would put an end to the confrontational adversarial ugliness of FPTP politics. How wrong I was. I seem to recall that in their earliest origins in England, party groupings were formed among politicians in Parliament, post-election, based on common interests. Whether there was much issue-based fluidity of movement, I don’t know, but lobbying and corruption have always occurred – depending, I daresay, on the definition of corruption.
I remember long ago getting my farther’s ear for a minute on MMP back when Social Credit were the only people pushing for it under Bruce Beetham. He was listening carefully until it suddenly dawned on him that “you mean those Values people would get into parliament!”. That was the end of that discussion. At the time the Values party was advocating the nationalisation of all productive farm land. A move that would have rendered his existence pointless.
I had always imagined that the Westminster system began as a representative selection of respected individuals heading off to Westminster to work out how issues should be dealt with. And that the advent of political parties came later and subverted the originally very good plan taking the decision making process out of Westminster and into party forums in private.
I think all political parties should be outlawed , but that would just send them underground and into more secrecy. The next best thing would be to select parliament by a totally random process like a jury is selected from all citizens.
D J S
David – What you’re saying about the origins of the Westminster system upon which we’re based ( and not such a bad system either) more or less tallies with my memory, derived firstly from a children’s history of Britain, which I’m not sure if I still have – and not inclined to search for, just in case I haven’t.But it was a natural sort of evolution.
I voted Values, am fairly relaxed about outlawing political parties, but government by a random selection of citizens could have some wonderful outcomes – or be terrifying ! Interesting.
The greens must get dog control out and impound all stray Chihuahuas. Stay on message, you will not solve climate change by igniting wildfires.
You’re not allowed to critique non-white persons. That’s racism. Plus he’s singing from Mama’s song sheet.
That is a false assumption to make with the changing demographics over the next 3 years and increasing Green party membership . With the Green party picking up membership from all age groups as the center parties refuse to move from the softly softly as more and more people become buried under the neo liberal landslide that has totally destroyed our public services .
The Problem is this, Chris: maintaining an industrial economy is not compatible with ‘saving the planet’.
You can either have an industrial economy or a planet to live on, not both.
And at every step along the way to our [now diabolical] predicament maintaining the industrial economy has been placed ahead of the environment.
Right now, the top priority of the Labour government is maintaining some kind of semblance of ‘normality’, even though normality is actually a gross aberration.
The really interesting thing is this: gross aberration has been normalised; the extremists are not those who want to ‘save the planet’ but those who want to destroy it via business-as-usual.
Of course, conservative voters would NEVER see themselves as extremists because their extreme position [of destroying the future, of destroying their progeny’s future] has been normalised by the system. Destroying the future is promoted every second of the day by the mainstream media and by the political system. This has been the case for decades. Car companies have now joined the oil companies in their reports of having known for decades that their products were (are) globally destructive being highlighted:
‘The Car Giants That Knew About Climate Change 50 Years Ago
General Motors and Ford have known about the effect burning fossil fuels has on climate for 50 years, a report from E&E News has revealed. And not just this: the two companies spent money on studying this effect and trying to understand the link between fossil fuels and climate change. But the report revealed that they failed to do anything about it. E&E News’ Maxine Joselow reports that the investigation into the two biggest carmaking companies in the United States revealed that their own scientists had told them about the industry’s role in boosting carbon dioxide emissions that had a heat-trapping effect in the atmosphere, eventually warming the whole planet.
Emissions from the transport industry are indeed one of the leading causes of what was a few decades ago called global warming and is now called anthropogenic climate change. GM researchers informed the executive suite of the company about these findings, but the latter did not act on this knowledge, Joselow writes, quoting the lead researchers at GM who unveiled the link between carbon dioxide emissions from exhaust fumes and the greenhouse effect.
What’s more, GM did not try to hush it up. On the contrary: the company made the conclusions of Ruth Reck and her colleagues public.
“The impact of the so-called carbon dioxide ‘greenhouse effect’ on the earth’s climate may be more complicated than previously thought, two General Motors Research Laboratories (GMR) climatologists reported to the American Geophysical Union today,” the company said in 1979, as cited by the E&E News report.’
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Car-Giants-That-Knew-About-Climate-Change-50-Years-Ago.html
So, the ice gets thinner and then disappears forever
https://nsidc.org/greenland-today/
raising sea levels spectacularly fast and destroying the climate stability of the Halocene.
And politicians sit on their hands and pretend it’s not happening.
Well said Chris.
The greens can make a positive contribution inside or outside the tent. It’s how the two dance together .. tango or foxtrot, it’s not binary
From my point of view, a gonzo argumentation, Chris Trotter. A bit like the charming of a snake-oil salesman selling useless cures… sorry, to say that.
A Leap of Faith, yes… does it work like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvDX30jwHYA
A convincing argument Chris.
Covid has changed everything
Both Labour and the Greens are only one arrow away from getting it in the ankle in a way that could undercut their support, giving the National opposition ammunition to attack them both.
That is their response to the ongoing covid pandemic.
The Labour Government are under constant pressure from the business community who want to open up the borders to allow them to properly exploit migrant labour. But which carries the risk of reintroducing covid back into the country.
The Greens may have to act as the political counter pressure to this.
The case in point is Sealords migrant labour import, with the government’s blessing.
If we ever needed a Green opposition it was over this issue.
if there are not enough New Zealanders to do this work, which is Sealords’ (and other employers’) argument for migrant labour), then give the fisheries a break until we can train up New Zealanders to more sustainably harvest this resource.
According to Mathew Hooton it is the government’s success in beating covid that gave them their unprecedented majority, in parliament.
Ardern declared 2020 the Covid election and it was. Labour’s 950,000 supporters from 2017 remained loyal not because of progress on housing or child poverty, but because of the Prime Minister’s leadership through the pandemic. Roughly 250,000 previously blue voters joined them, with many believing Ardern had literally saved their lives.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/matthew-hooton-jacinda-arderns-line-on-the-greens-and-the-cabinet-minister-she-must-remove/F7PER26YFZWQTKO3AO5765ZOBU/
If Hooton is right any stumble by the government that sees them drop the ball over covid will also see that majority removed. The benefactors will be those who warned against government inaction or actions which saw covid returned to our shores.
I detect rising public anger, even outrage, that after all the sacrifice that has been made, and just as we were about to reap the reward of a covid free summer, the government is bowing to Sealord’s demand for migrant Labour putting this nation’s covid free status in jeopardy.
The Green Party need to give voice to this public anger.
Protecting the seabed and foreshore from wanton exploitation, and protecting our covid free status is an issue where environmental protection and public health coalesce, with the Maori concept of kaitiakitanga
The fishing resource is under extreme threat from industrial scale over fishing.
Rather than importing migrant workers under dodgy conditions of employment to continue the rape of our fisheries.
The Green Party should be holding the government to account, and demand that our fisheries be given a break and a needed chance to recover, at least until local seafarers can be trained up to harvest this resource sustainably.
The protection of the seabed and foreshore and our covid free status both need a political champion in parliament.
The Green Party, in alliance with the Maori Party, need to be that champion.
The political demand the Green opposition need to raise in parliament;
1/ ‘Stop the importation of migrant fishery workers for Sealords,
2/ Give the fisheries a break from industrial harvesting,
3/ Protect our covid free status.
Pat
Kai Tahu surely need to train their Rangitahi to work the Kai Tahu/ Sealords fleet.
Or is just money for the big wigs.
Pat – I hope you’re right, and that people are outraged about the importation of those poor exploited foreign fishermen to boost the profits of Sealord. It is something more akin to the philosophy of the Nats or Act, than a government purporting to represent the interests of all of the people.
Conventional wisdom says that appropriate COVID testing offers protection to the local populace. But a risk, combined with factors of over-fishing, muddies the waters, and these are, as you say, issues which the Greens and the Maori Party should be raising in Parliament.
I am currently pretty cynical about the Greens commitment to the environment and pinning my hope on Maori. Making this a Treaty issue and maybe getting an urgent Tribunal hearing could be the best way forward for any long-term solutions, which is how the government should be thinking, and has to show that they are.
Comments are closed.