Green on Green unfriendly fire: A Sustainable Eco-Village divided against itself cannot stand!

When I first argued that Dr Kerekere was part of a new woke clique inside the Greens who were manoeuvring her for co-leadership because incredibly they don’t think Marama is woke enough, many laughed at the mere concept of something so unhinged because a Green Party co led by Dr Kerekere and Ricardo would be barely a 3% Party.

Terrifyingly, the woke clique are under the impression that with uber woke leaders like Dr Dre and Ricardo, they will soar in the polls when in reality it would fucking implode and end up a 3% Party if we are lucky.

Well, here are the factions she is using now rushing to her defence…

Māori, Rainbow Greens say Elizabeth Kerekere bullying claim is ‘dirty politics’

In the fallout from Elizabeth Kerekere’s leaked “crybaby” text, two clear factions have emerged in the Green Party – with team Kerekere accusing the leakers of “dirty politics”.

Kerekere has gone to ground, but a group of Green insiders is speaking out in her defence. They believe the leak, and subsequent reports of her “bullying”, were part of a smear campaign from Greens unhappy about their proposed list rankings ahead of the election.

Inside sources say tensions are boiling and the party is becoming divided, as the Green’s base put together their power rankings of the MPs and candidates. They say navigating the Green factions has become “delicate” during the ranking period.

This political popularity contest is how Green members get into Parliament. A high ranking guarantees a seat. And if an MP’s ranking goes down, it could mean they’ll be booted from the House come October 14.

…the new constitution adopted by the party in 2022, expanded the guidelines for selecting candidates whilst allocating voting rights to previously informal interest group networks. One effect of this has been to de-prioritise talent, effectiveness and electoral appeal in the list-ranking process in favour of a kind of horse trading over how to fit in the right quota of geography, ethnicity, ability, youth & gender into the various positions on the list.

It is this new network that a far more puritanical woke clique have seized upon and manipulated to ensure their identity candidates have most influence.

I have voted Greens most of my adult life and I barely recognise this current mutation.

The Greens must move against the alienating woke middle class politics by urgently focusing on the economic pain voters are living with.

To that end the top 6 candidates as ranked should be:

1: Chloe

2: Golriz

3: Julie Ann Genter

4: Efeso Collins

5: Steve Able

6: Lan Pham

While this battle for power erupts inside the Greens, there are still large questions over other woke manipulations of the List, as I argued in yesterdays special report…

On the Green Party list right now is a candidate who has actively fought environmental law yet has been given a higher ranking than actual environmental campaigners like Steve Able and Lan Pham!!!

This candidate, as the CEO of a Māori Trust Board, went to the Environment Court to stopTe Uri O Hikihiki, a hapu of Ngatiwai, using the RMA to protect life in the sea in their own area (just south of the Bay of Islands) and allow recovery.

The Trust Board took this position to defend the value of the Board’s fishing quota, which is controlled through their company.

Fortunately the hapu and community groups won the court case. Read about it here.

This ground-breaking work using the RMA to protect marine diversity is exactly what’s needed not just on this coastline but nationally. Given that the ocean is in crisis from overfishing and now climate change, a key question for Greens members ahead of the list ranking vote is, ‘Can candidates who have fought against marine protections protect those marine environments?’

How did the Green Party select and elevate to the top of the list a candidate who went to court to defend a corporate fishing interest over a hapu and community initiative to secure marine biodiversity protection?

Is it because the candidate ticks the right identity boxes?

What has happened within the Green Party to enable such a candidate to be in an electable position on the list while high-profile campaigners like lan Pham and Steve Abel are not?

Is the Green Party now being used to greenwash the activities of its own candidates?

I ask again, why has no one in the mainstream media picked up on this and demanded answers?

If we can pause the career of a National Party candidate for liking a gross joke and offensive poem, how can the Greens select a candidate who actively fought against environmental protections for the fishing industry over and above actual Greenpeace campaigners?

 

Increasingly having independent opinion in a mainstream media environment which mostly echo one another has become more important than ever, so if you value having an independent voice – please donate here.

If you can’t contribute but want to help, please always feel free to share our blogs on social media