[The election bombardment will end soon, I promise…]
I was disappointed with the showing made by the Greens at this election. Given the general environmental crisis and the promise of support for Labour, leftie voters who were disillusioned with Labour should have had a natural home with the Greens. The departure of sadly controversial Green MP Nandor Tanczos would have dispelled some fears; the Green party has stood up for itself over the last three years, retaining independence from government but still able to enact smart legislation, and showing through the waste management bill and the “anti-smacking” bill (among others) that it could work broadly across the house. Add to this what everyone agrees was a wonderful campaign, and you have a political party that didn’t put a foot wrong.
And with all this, it still didn’t make it to 7%. Disaffected voters clearly wanted Labour out of government, so the Greens didn’t benefit from their desertion of Labour. The “anti-smacking” bill, rightly identified as the turning point for the nation’s support of Labour, cast a shadow over the Green party as well (and National, who had also supported the bill, somehow waltzed free without being tainted). The general resistance to “nanny state” (how I hate that term) caught the Greens as well, with their advocacy for a low-footprint lifestyle.
Is 7% as high as it’s ever going to get? Will the Green party always be this small? Co-leader and chief asset Jeanette will likely be gone next election, and what then? No other party is even close to taking the environmental crisis seriously. Heck, ACT have 5 MPs in government coalition and they’re led by someone who thinks climate change is a scam.
Perhaps this is it, then. I don’t know what they can do differently.
Green % vote at the last four elections:
2008: 6.43%
2005: 5.30%
2002: 7%
1999: 5.16%
Day: November 10, 2008
[media] The Comment Section
Furthermore – can we have new political commentators please?
It was hard to stomach the presence all over the TV of professional **** Matt Hootron, smugly spinning for his Nats inner circle masters. Hooting is just getting more and more visible, despite being neck-deep in the mire of the Brash National leadership, as revealed in Hager’s “The Hollow Men”. His newspaper column is pure PR for the Nats – how come no-one is talking about the inexplicable moment on Saturday when a victorious John Key, live on TV linkup talking to Hootsmon, told him he was pleased that Hooting could run the “Key wins” newspaper column he’d read earlier? Do all political columnists send drafts of their columns to party leaders the day before they run? I mean, WTF?
I’ve talked before about the huge bias in NZ political punditry towards conservative white men, and the surprisingly large representation among them of active National party operators such as Hootron. Our media continues to do us a grave disservice by perpetuating this state of affairs.
Which by no means is an endorsement of token lefty Chris Trotter. Incredibly, his post-election column in the Sunday Star-Times began “the NZ left has just suffered its own 9/11”. This epic lapse in taste and judgment leaves me feeling nauseous.
My recommendation – razor gangs for the commentariat. Chop out the grumpy old men and give the space to new blood, new faces, new perspectives, and particularly to political and perhaps even ethnic diversity.
And please put Matt Hootie back in his box.
Key’s Victory Speech
(No-one has transcribed it? Really?)
Key’s victory speech was poorly delivered and a bit rubbish, but it was also gracious and thoughtful. Using his victory speech to talk at length – at great length! – about his admiration for Helen Clark was astonishing. Pledging to represent all New Zealanders, whether they voted for him or not, was an approach clearly lifted from Obama but positive nonetheless. And making a public outreach to the Maori Party was another un-needed but appreciated move.
There were two moments in his speech that won enormous cheers from the room: “Our collective success rests on the success of individuals”, he said, and “It will be a government that values individual achievement.” These are clear signals of the ethos inside National. There is a lot of meaning in those statements, a lot of politics, clearly understood by those in the room without having to be unpacked. Key has come in with a clear agenda, and it is the same as that of the 90s-era Nat government, the members of which still fill his caucus.
The only restraint is that the voters have not given a mandate for a return to the 90s; as Gordon Campbell suggested, the mandate given John Key is “be not-Helen”. Massive reform should erode voter support, and fast. Many inside the Nats are eager to get on with their 90s-era project while they have their hands on the tiller. Expect big battles inside the National party as the ideologues take on the pragmatists.