Grey Greens might be better than red Greens

Chris Trotter’s column in The Independent (which I’ve been unable to find on-line) addresses the greying of the Greens.

 

Nine years ago, when Rod Donald and his “Magnificent Seven” cantered up the steps of Parliament like a herd of eager, old-order destroying centaurs, their public image was one of youthful exuberance, reckless idealism and what might almost be called political gaiety. It was a mirage. Even then, most of the Green Party caucus were well into their 40s and 50s. Their most youthful member, Nandor Tanczos, was 33.

 

Nine years on, the youngest member of the Green caucus (and likely to remain so) is the 38 year-old Metiria Turei. Robbed of the ever-youthful personality of the late rod Donald the Greens have taken on a distinctly middle-aged appearance. … The average of the top 12 placeholders on the party list is a bracing (and very baby-boomerish) 52 years.

 

…I had foolishly assumed the Greens would be offering the electorate a party list chock full of candidates under 40: people whose best years were still in front of them and whose political lives would be dominated by climate change and peak oil, not Vietnam and the Springbok tour.

 

Setting aside the ageist comment that at an average 52 their best years are behind them, it is interesting Trotter should define the Green MPs and candidates, not by environmental issues by social ones.  And that is water-melon factor (green on the outside, red in the middle) which explains why the Greens have failed to gain much traction.

 

Had they been moderate on social and economic issues they would be the one party in the middle of the political spectrum which actually stood for something; and their ability to coalesce with either Labour or National would have ensured they achieved at least some of it.

 

Instead they are in the perpetual wilderness to the left of Labour so in spite of the cosy photo-ops of Helen Clark and Jeanette Fitzsimmons before the 2005 elections the Greens were left out of coalition talks at the behest of NZ First and United. The few achievements they are remembered for are not environmental but social – like the smacking ban, or socialist – buy NZ made. And while achieving little or nothing of note environmentally they have continued to support, or at least abstain on confidence and supply, a Labour-led Government which has overseen the worst deforestation in decades and an alarming increase in carbon emissions.

 

…Another 7% result would, however, be enough to bring ninth-ranked Kennedy Graham into parliament. A highly experienced and successful diplomat, lawyer and academic, Graham will bring an aura of upper-middle-class respectability to the Greens.

 

“It’s fair to say that, at 62, Graham (who is Sir Douglas Graham’s younger brother) is unlikely to attract a very big chunk of the youth vote.

 

But he might attract some of the middle-aged and older people who have the time and money to worry about saving the world.

 

Respectability would appear to be the watchword these days in the Green party…Departing from the parliamentary scene is of course …Nandor Tanczos.

 

He takes with him much of the party’s heart and spirit: that indefinable quality that distinguishes the Green ideology from mere environmentalism…What he was prepared to do was lead the fight to end the Green’s unhealthy passive-aggressive relationship with the Labour Party.

 

It was time he told me to reinvent the old Green slogan: “Not of the Left, not of the right but in front” with renewed meaning.

 

Fearing this could lead the party to enter into a coalition with the National party, the econ-socialist wing of the Greens organised hard and successfully to ensure the ex-pat Australian political scientist (Russell) Norman defeated Tanczos in the race for the party’s co-leadership.

 

…In 2008 however, it is the words of Virginia Horrock, No 19 on the Green Party list, that resonate most disturbingly. “I want to persuade my generation to face up to what has happened to the earth under our watch, I am keen to encourage grandparents/baby boomers to make the earth their final gift to the next generations. Green voters are predominantly over 55, like me, so I feel I can appeal to them as people with the same concerns.”

 

Noble sentiments, Virginia, but revolutions are not made by people who are “predominantly over 55”.

 

No, but they are more likely to vote and appealing to them with sound environmental policy without scaring them with a radical social and economic agenda would give them a powerful position in the centre, where the power of MMP politics lies.

7 Responses to “Grey Greens might be better than red Greens”

  1. poneke Says:

    The few achievements they are remembered for are not environmental but social – like the smacking ban, or socialist – buy NZ made.

    How can it possibly be socialist to buy something that is NZ-made? Our businesses have not been subsidised or protected since the end of 1984 and must compete with the unlimited importing of often-subsidised goods often from countries that have trade barriers against ours.

    New Zealand-made products and services are the total opposite of socialist.

    Or am I missing something here? That to be a true capitalist, we should only buy products made overseas?

  2. homepaddock Says:

    It is not socialist to buy something NZ made, nor am I suggesting we shouldn’t. I generally choose local providers of goods and services unless they can’t supply the quality and/or price I require.

    The socialism is using tax payers’ money to persuade us to do it, especially when something which qualifies as NZ made may contribute less to the economy than something which isn’t. For example an item of merino clothing made elsewhere but using NZ wool, product-development and design may make a bigger contribution to the country than a similar item made here from imported material.

  3. truthseekernz Says:

    Greens have been moderate on more or less everything. The problem is that they have generally been a decade ahead of everyone else. Greens have been warning about the need for prudence with respect to greenhouse gas emissions for 25 years!! “Radicals!” “Extremists!” were the cries from the self-appointed ‘those who know better’. Well, now the ice is melting faster every day….and the rest have caught up. Well, most of the rest. The National Party is still lagging the pack.

    The ONE issue that has hurt the Greens more than any other was the drug policy. The Greens might be on 15% in the polls, only to crash to 6% or 7% thanks to Peter Dunne or someone else raising the prospect of legalised dope. The policy itself was not advocating drug use – quite the contrary – it was a harm reduction policy, intended to get drugs out of the closet and away from organised crime and ensure people dealt with any drug use from an informed and responsible position (as much as possible, anyway).

    Many Greens wanted that policy to just go away. Why should every other Green policy be held hostage by that one? In the big scheme – saving the world – who cares what happens to dopeheads?

    Jeanette Fitzsimons has been pushing for energy efficiency. Conservation. It’s a sane and conservative approach to power use.

    Keith Locke rightly opposes war. Nothing extreme there.

    Sue Bradford worked to remove a defence in law that allowed parents to get away with some appalling violence toward their children. The threshold for prosecution has been lowered, allowing police to deal with people who do beat their children more effectively, NOT to prosecute anyone who smacks their child for being naughty.

    Sue Kedgeley has been rightly promoting food safety, and country of origin labelling, especially now that much of our food comes from who knows where and is made under lord only knows what conditions.

    All of these policies deal with improving people’s lives, their security and their wellbeing.

    People who think the Greens are merely environmentalists display their own ignorance and what the global Green Movement has been up to these past 30 years. It’s a classic case of misinformed people making judgments about another group of people based on an obvious lack of knowledge about that other group.

    No Green will ever tell you they are just an environmental party. The policies outlined above are hardly “red”.

    Peace?
    Conservation of resources?
    Security for children?
    Safe food?
    Prudent responses to climate risks?

    If this is “red”….paint me up. I’m a cherry.

  4. truthseekernz Says:

    Regarding buying things that are NZ made, I have no ideological problems with governments disseminating useful information according to their values and best judgment.

    “Buy NZ Made” has, at one time of another, received money from every government, as far as I know. It makes sense to support local industries / businesses and to highlight the benfits of doing so. The government stands to reap higher a tax take through any additional local business thus generated.

    Investment in….return out….standard business. Where’s the problem?

  5. truthseekernz Says:

    One last comment regarding MMP. There is no way 6 or 7 Green (or any other) MP can outvote all the others.

    A party “in the middle” only has influence to the extent it more willing to negotiate and seek compromise than some other.

    For example, the Greens and National and NZ First oppose some labour government policy.

    It could just as easily be National seeking common ground and a way to support the policy that they are comfortable with. Any group of MPs have this same power if the proposer lacks a majority.

    Criticising MMP or any “middle party” because they are able to work constructively with others while the National party, in particular, is not, simply isn’t fair or right. It betrays an arogance on thier part that they feel entitled to run the pace alone despite having nowhere near to majority voter support. To underscore this arrogance, National now wants to get rid of MMP rather than acknowledge the reality they really are just one more minority among a group of minorities….and just get on with it and be constructive. That arrogance will hurt National.

  6. homepaddock Says:

    Truthseekernz re investment in…return out…

    Do we know that the cost of investment is justified by the return? Does it work, is it needed? Is a Government-funded campaign more effective than businesses doing it themselves?

    I am not criticising a middle party because they can work constructively with others, I am saying the Greens would be more effective in the middle than at the far left.

    And re MMP: National has not taken a position for or against MMP, it is just offering people the right to vote on whether or not they want it or another system.

  7. truthseekernz Says:

    Thanks for the response, hp.

    Regarding investment, there is always risk. There is no guarantee that money spent on anything will produce the desired return. But if you don’t invest, the guaranteed return is at least zero. I’m not one of those that thinks government has no place in investing. Canada, Australia and New Zealand have all been shaped by governments investing where private business either refused to or was not able to. You make a business case based on assumptions that are consistent with what you know and you execute it….If you’re right, you get a positive return.

    You assert the Greens are on the far left. How are they on the far left? I’m aware of their policies in detail. Are you? Which ones are “far left”? Abolishing income tax? Someting else?

    National’s position on MMP is revealed by the fact if the intention to have a referendum on it. If they were in favour of it, there would be no referendum. End of story. Peter Shirtcliffe and Graeme Hunt and others are waiting to spend a few million to convince Kiwis they should give up their vote that actually counts so the Shirtcliffes and Hunts can get “their” Ministers elected by 38% of voters back on speed-dial for policies they anonymously donated piles to get……just like the old days.

    MMP is doing just fine for voters. particularly since it gives every voter a vote that actually count. Who wants to go back to being a National voter in a safe Labour seat? Or vice verse? Or a minor party voter who never elects anyone at alll?

    But this isn’t about the voters. Who asked the voters about asset sales? Over 90% opposed the sale of Telecom. Why no recognition from National of democracy then? They voted for the law, supporting Labour, making the sale possible and it was done in 13 minutes.

    13 minutes. So much for “democracy”. No….this referendum is all about the National party…..not voters.

Leave a Reply