Green co-leader
May 31st, 2006 at 9:09 am by David FarrarWell we are in the last few days of the contest for co-leader of the Green Party, who has a Y chromosome. Incidentally do they test the candidates for eligibility or just take their word for it?
I watched the four candidates on Agenda, as Joe Hendren did.
I agree with the NZ Herald that Mike Ward is effectively out of the race. A nice guy, but no longer a leader.
Dave Clendon has handled himself okay, and if Nandor was not in the contest I suspect he would poll close to Russel Norman in a two way race. But with two “front-runners” he has never made the impact needed to be considered on his merits.
So that leaves Nandor and Russel. Now I’ll take a punt here and say that I think Nandor should be elected, but predict Russel will.
The reasons I think the Greens should go with Nandor, is that he is the safest option for them, and when on 5.3% you don’t want to risk losing 0.4%. Nandor has noticeably picked up his game since losing his seat, and then returning as Rod Donald’s replacement. He has the skills and resources that come from being an MP, and also for my money has the right strategy on emphasising the environmental brand over the social justice brand (where other parties compete).
This is not to say Russel Norman will do a bad job if elected. He seems very articulate and competent and importantly has good working relationships with other key players. However if he is made Leader he will struggle a bit with not being in Parliament, while one of the failed contenders is. He may get over-shadowed by Nandor even if he is elected Leader.
So why do I think Russel Norman is more likely than Nandor to win? Because the Greens are using STV (as they should) to elect the co-leader.
Nandor is well known after seven years as an MP to the Green party faithful who vote. They would have made a decision on whether to see him as leader or not and will rank him either first or last.
So I think Nandor will have the most votes on the first ballot, but unless he gets a majority, then Ward and Clendon will drop out and almost all of their votes will go to Norman, with Norman beating Nandor on the final ballot.
Now bear in mind I am not exactly a Green Party insider, so I may be totally wrong and they will declare Mike Ward leader by consensus!
I await the announcement with interest. Anyone know when it is due at the weekend?
No tag for this post.
May 31st, 2006 at 9:49 am
Any wanker that stands is publicy supporting sexism. Just the right stance for a politician!
Vote:May 31st, 2006 at 10:51 am
The coleader vote is on Saturday.
Vote:May 31st, 2006 at 11:18 am
Nandor’s position is further weakened by the relative weakness of the Upper North Island within the party, especially vis-a-vis Wellington and the Top of the South (i.e. Norman’s and Ward’s geographical support bases). The Auckland province’s relative weakness IMO is the main reason why Nandor was demoted down the list in 2005 should see Norman elected now.
Vote:May 31st, 2006 at 11:29 am
Whatever the outcome its nice to see a party leader elected via a transparant democratic process instead of the frenzied backstabbing of National or the sinister opacity of Labour.
Vote:May 31st, 2006 at 12:30 pm
“Norman” would be their media liason co-leader “Russell”. “Nandor” their deputy leader in the House. Two of the roles Rod Donald performed.
Vote:May 31st, 2006 at 1:11 pm
all the green members are such a bunch of half witted idealist commies that parliament will be a better place without them all. I hope that whoever gets the “co-Leaders” job makes such a hash of it that the greens sink into oblivion at the next election. They fail to make a relevant contribution, they have no sound economic basis for any social policy, and sue kedgley answer for everything is to ban it. I am trying to figure out who will do the most damage to the party – because I want that person to get the job.
Vote:May 31st, 2006 at 1:42 pm
Given that most of political debate is about responding to the prejudices of others -I have felt the same way about the ACT party.
But respectfully note, that their continuance as a possible coalition partner for National reduces the amount of support National can win in the centre. Also that a division of the right into differnt parties adds to the public debate.
If other parties considered the longer term of the country/environmental sustainabilty, rather than short term economic returns and associated consumer popularity, the Greens would probably disband voluntarily.
Vote:May 31st, 2006 at 6:56 pm
Transparent process??? Give me strength. There is back stabbling here as well I will lay a significant wager on that. It is just so laughable that perfectly capable women are prohibited from standing in a werd backfiring of the silly rules surrounding this election.
Vote:June 1st, 2006 at 10:51 am
My thoughs here https://bloggreen.wordpress.com/2006/05/31/my-thoughts-on-the-leadership/
Vote:June 1st, 2006 at 10:57 am
Is that good or bad Kakariki that we both agree
Vote:June 3rd, 2006 at 3:33 pm
It was a cloudless blue sky top of the valley day in Upper Hutt, when they elected Russell Norman new Green Party co-leader, this afternoon 3 June 2006.
Vote: