More thoughts on the Greens
The Greens in New Zealand have condemned themselves at present to being on the fringe through their own actions.
All too often in their actions and pronouncements they lay themselves open to charges of unreality, loopiness and far left beliefs.
For example look at Kedgleys announcements last week on food and trade which are at total variance with what for example the UN Secretary general is calling for. No doubt Kedgley would argue that his call just proved that there was an agri-business plot to rule the world and that Ban Ki-moon had been subverted by the evil United States.
Despite what they may believe there are those on the right of centre who have some sympathy with and share some of the Greens concerns.
These shared concerns need not necessarily be environmental some are likely to be on social issues. Unfortunately the Greens seem to have hi-jacked the phrase social justice and transformed it into code for left wing activist.
However, by positioning themselves to the left of Labour, they have confined themselves to being a doormat for Labour.
Labour knows the Greens effectively have nowhere else to go, unlike possibly Maori, definitely Winston First and United Future. Many of us as voters may dislike the Winston option being there, but it is and may well depend on the bauble quota.
Vernon Small the other day in the Dominion Post had an item on the Greens conference, amongst other things he wrote:-
………they are sick of being Labour’s “gimme” on support, and hanker for a more independent and principled stance that . . . under some circumstances, even if only to give Labour the organic raspberry . . . gives them some show of a deal with National.
Delegates at the Greens’ annual conference in Auckland this weekend wrestled, in a consensual way, with how to express that feeling in a process during the election campaign and after.
The debate was so long (behind closed doors) that it squeezed out a Saturday session on “other topical issues” and ran through to yesterday’s annual meeting.
Finally they resolved, as Dr Norman put it, to “announce our preferences for post-election negotiations prior to the election” but wait for more policy – particularly from National it seems – before saying so. In the meantime, and beyond, they remain “an independent party of principle”.
It sounds anodyne, but does mark a major shift from the 2005 campaign, when the Greens at the same point in the cycle made it clear they would back Labour on confidence and supply – just in case their predominant Left-leaning base deserted them for fear of a Brash-led National administration.
Whether it makes a lot of difference in practice is a moot point.
Quite.
No one is likely to take seriously that the current Green leadership would seriously negotiate with National when the Top 10 on their list include Jeanette Fitzsimons, Russel Norman, Sue Kedgley, Sue Bradford, Keith Locke and Catherine Delahunty.
Adam was bemused to see one paper refer to Red Russel as being from the Greens social justice wing. He is not. In Adam’s mind Red Russel is from the Marxist-Leninist wing and he and his fellow travellers need to be exposed for what they are.
It is just not credible that the MSM give the Greens so little searching examination. They need to have the spotlight of attention shone on them, their beliefs, backgrounds and policies. Though it is possible that this situation is beginning to change, albeit slowly.
Economists and commentators alike need to examine just what their policies will mean for NZ especially their wish to move to an eco-tax regime, because if it is based on their past voodoo economics approach, the consequences will be dire.
Through allowing themselves to be captured from the left, the Greens are unlikely to ever be a major force in NZ Government, unless it is the only way Labour can retain power. The probable scenario enabling that is one that could well see National having the largest number of votes, but Labour cobbling a coalition together that is likely to be inherently unstable and extremely unpopular with the electorate.
Small also wrote:-
And you do have to wonder how the traditional Green message would go down with the stretched middle classes; that high fuel bills ought to go higher, in the interests of setting a price for carbon, incentivising households and encouraging innovation.
The problem is, that even though there are some legitimate arguments for their position – the composition of much of their leadership and membership will frighten the punters.
Further, their anti business, anti trade posturing worries many as it is likely to mean dis-investment by business, factory closures and job losses.
Attacking the farmers’ co-op, by calling for it to be a good Kiwi, putting a resource levy on irrigation water, as Dr Norman suggested, and excoriating “dirty dairying” may win some votes among the Greens target voters.
Superficially, until people start to think through the implications of the message and see that this is an attack on business, jobs and the economy.
The Greens in their speeches are long on the evils of today, but say very little about what they would put in it’s place and what this would mean for the economy.
Small concluded:-
But as for making the Greens a more appealing partner for National – which at last check had a fairly strong rural support base? No show.
On that score, the Greens have called their own bluff.
Now Adam knows that people can say, but Adam you have resisted calls for National to state all it’s policies so why apply a different test to the Greens.
Well, the fact is we know what many aspects of National policy are likely to be and further National have been in government before.
The Greens have not. They need to sell themselves to the electorate.
Further, they need to reposition themselves from a being a party of the left to a party of the centre. If they cannot or will not do this, then the way could well be open for a new truly Green party to emerge and occupy the centre ground, picking up votes from both Labour and National.
This might be no bad thing in the long run, in many respects both Labour and National are peddling old fashioned nostrums. There is no sense of real vision from either of the two main parties.
There was an interesting editorial in the Herald this morning discussing the Greens and the Maori party and the challenges/options they face.
Despite their durability, the Greens should be a stronger party in this country. Environmental values are widely held and can offer a political identity outside the normal social divide. The party in our Parliament, however, has not offered a separate identity, it adheres to a left-wing view of environmentalism, opposed to free trade, preferring public ownership to private property, distracted by issues it calls social justice.
A broader Green Party would build some conservation projects on private property rights and recognise the power of market forces to ensure resources are used sustainably. A party of that stamp would draw support from across the spectrum and could contemplate dealings with any government.
The Green Party needs to move out of left field and become a central player.
Adam doubt that this Green party has the will, wit or wisdom to do that. he thinks they are too wedded to dogma and 20th century agit-prop. They as much as Labour and National are fighting the battles of the past, rather than girding themselves for the challenges of today. Just as much as the others they all too readily take refuge in self righteous rhetoric and on some issues exhibit no signs of being prepared to listen to any alternative voice.
