Mike Ward refuses to play ball
May 21st, 2008 at 12:56 pm by David FarrarLet ti be noted that Phil U was right when he blogged in January that there was a plan to put Russel Norman into Parliament before the election by having Nandor fall on his sword. I linked to his story and it then became a major news story – sadly with no crediting Phil as the original author.
There would be significant advantages to the Greens to having Russel, who was only No 10 last time, be in Parliament this year so he could campaign around the country funded by the taxpayer, as other MPs are.
For this to happen, they needed three things. Nandor to agree to resign. Catherine Delahunty to agree to refuse to be an MP, and for Mike Ward to refuse to be an MP.
Mike has refused, as he should. Incidentially Ward was ranked dismally low by the party hierarchy in their initial list ranking for 2008 and massively promoted by rank and file members. But his 2008 list ranking is not important – his 2005 one is.
There were two things which the Greens were trying to do, which sit badly with me. I’ll take them one by one.
1 – MPs resigning before the election
Labour is more guilty than the Greens here, but the idea of a party list is not to shuffle MPs off half way through a parliamentary term at whim. MPs are elected by the NZ public to serve three years and in all but exceptional cases they should. Steve Maharey becoming a VC is a worthy exception (yes I know he was not List but same principle). And Bolger becoming Ambassador is another. And few would fault a Party Leader from departing the scene once they are no longer leader. But these are rare exceptional circumstances.
Generally the public have the right to expect that the MPs they elect by voting for a Party and that party’s list, are going to represent the public throughout the term of Parliament. No wonder there is resentment against MMP when List MPs are treated purely as creatures of the party.
Labour since the election has dispatched Jim Sutton (No 11 on list, No 4 on effective list), Di Yates, Ann Hartley, and Georgina Beyer.
2 – Changing the order of the list post-election
Pressuring candidates to stand aside for someone more lowly ranked to become an MP is also anti-democratic and flys in the face of the public making an informed choice by voting for a party with an expectation of who will be MPs.
The Green Party members ranked Mike Ward No 8 and Russel Norman No 10 last election. People voted for the Green Party on the basis. Yes I know very few voters would now the exact details of the list, but that is not a reason to ignore its importance. If you argue who is on the list does not matter, then why not allow parties to have blank lists and let them appoint who they want at any time to be an MP for them.
For that is what the Greens, and to a degree Labour, have tried to do. Have the party rather than the public determine who becomes an MP.
May 21st, 2008 at 1:09 pm
We should know better. This is clearly a principled act because it is the Greens.
If it was the Nats, it would be the dark forces of Big Business in the background!
Vote:May 21st, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Interesting objections; as a layman voter I always thought the party vote WAS about just that – giving whatever party I want seats in the house, because I support that party’s policies. Whoever they choose to put in those seats is a freedom I have implicitly given them, by giving them my party vote. So I don’t really understand how this subverts democracy.
(Obviously I chose to give them this freedom to put whoever in their seat on the assumption that whoever they choose will carry out their party’s core objectives more or less as effectively as anyone else. Sort of like the decision to shop at Kirkcaldies rather than Farmers is not conditional on who is running the menswear counter that day!!)
Vote:May 21st, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Despite what the champions of MMP like Saint Rod Donald told the stupid plebs it was always going to be a creature to be manipulated by the party bosses and a lessening of democracy. Nothing I have seen since it was adopted has changed my mind on that score.
Vote:May 21st, 2008 at 1:18 pm
DPF
I know it is being picky but could you please edit your post so that it does not read as if Steve Maharey has a VC.
The VC is reserved for outstanding men, men of courage and bravery, Maharey is neither of these.
Vote:May 21st, 2008 at 1:28 pm
You don’t become a Victoria Cross, you are awarded one. I would have thought the potential for confusion on that score was pretty minimal.
Vote:May 21st, 2008 at 1:29 pm
The Greens abusing the system so Russel Norman can spend tax payers money campaigning? Wooha, nothing to see here. Green voters don’t mind anyway, your money is their money as far as they are concerned, and they put it to a better use anyway.
Vote:May 21st, 2008 at 1:35 pm
DPF
“Generally the public have the right to expect that the MPs they elect by voting for a Party and that party’s list, are going to represent the public throughout the term of Parliament.”
But isn’t that for the people who voted for the party do decide, not you? I voted for the Greens at the last election, and I certainly don’t mind that the party’s making strategic decisions to make itself stronger.
“Pressuring candidates to stand aside for someone more lowly ranked to become an MP is also anti-democratic”
The Greens are far more democratic than the National Party. In the Green Party the list is decided by its thousands of members, whereas in the National Party, cabinet is appointed in a rather autocratic manner by the leader.
“The Green Party members ranked Mike Ward No 8 and Russell Norman No 10 last election.”
But that’s not the feeling in the party any more – and that’s what we’re talking about here, whether the Green Party members want Norman to be an MP ahead of Ward on the list. I don’t know how many Green party meetings you’ve been to lately DPF (I suspect none) but no one at the meetings I’ve been to has suggested that Ward be higer on the list than Norman.
This is another nonsensical beat up. An attempt to paint the Greens as undemocratic when they’re probably the most democratic party in the country. You seem to be picking the tack of attacking your opponents strong points with spin based on obscure facts. Karl Rove would be proud …. if it wasn’t so transparent..
Vote:May 21st, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Ha fucking ha. A dodgy deal that has blow up in Russell Normans face.
Vote:May 21st, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Johnyboy said “Despite what the champions of MMP like Saint Rod Donald told the stupid plebs it was always going to be a creature to be manipulated by the party bosses and a lessening of democracy. Nothing I have seen since it was adopted has changed my mind on that score.”
While I can see that manipulating the list in-between elections is not as democratic as it should be….. Can you explain how a party getting, say 35 – 40 % of the vote getting to form a massive majority in parliament (as under first past the post) is MORE democratic than them getting the 35-40% of seats they do now under MMP?
Vote:May 21st, 2008 at 1:47 pm
I love this, it seems that Ward and Nandor are having the last say and good on them.
Nandor was shafted by the hard left of the party and Ward was demoted for reasons unknown (possibly because he was more interested in environmental issues than social issues)
I would imagine that even the Greens are having a hard time discussing this issue in a “non confrontational style”
Vote:May 21st, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Roger – don’t be silly! How is anyone supposed to attack their opponent personally if they don’t know which Green party member it’s going to be?
Hell, we’d have to resort to attacking the Greens on their policies, or something…
Vote:May 21st, 2008 at 1:58 pm
RRM – Nah, it doesn’t matter who the MPS are. You can just say that the party is full of drug-addled communists.
Always remember, in kiwiblog debate you have to keep in mind that: Labour = lesbian communists, and Greens = drugie communists
Vote:May 21st, 2008 at 1:59 pm
“Nandor was shafted by the hard left”
heh – if only you knew Nandor!
Vote:May 21st, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Under FPP you would not get a “massive majority” with 35-40% of the vote –maybe just scrape in. FPP elections world wide generally only require that level of votes to gain victory. After the election you know what the Governments policies are you dont have to wait for the back room deals and cobbled together crap we have had since MMP arrived to find out. You dont get tails (poodle) wagging dogs. If you dont like what they dish up you can dump them in three years. I prefer that to MMP.
Vote:That does not mean I dont like proportionality, voted for STV as my choice, I just dont like the MMP option that was pushed by the minor parties for their own benefit as we can see now.
May 21st, 2008 at 2:07 pm
This attempted manipulation by the Greens is exctly why a referendum on MMP is required.
When I cast my Party Vote at the last election I expected the integrity of the list to be maintained until the next election. I did not expect the party I voted for to just put any Tom, Dick or Harry or Mary Maud or Kate into Parliament, if someone died or left Parliament for whatever justifiable reason, at their whim.
Vote:May 21st, 2008 at 2:16 pm
pdm – and therein lies the difference between you and me – I have no problem with a party using my party vote to fill the seat with whoever they believe will do their work best.
And certainly if the Greens have X seats in the house, and one list MP resigns or moves on, and they put someone (anyone) from their list into that seat, then they still have X seats in the house. So I don’t understand why there is a problem for anyone such as yourself who clearly did not vote for the Greens.
So you might have to sell me the idea that there’s a problem with the system…
Vote:May 21st, 2008 at 2:25 pm
What an extraordinary beat-up. Nandor wanted to go sooner rather than later if Russel were to become an MP so as to raise his profile. He was acting in what he though were the best interests of the Party, given that he was retiring anyway. It was up to Mike Ward and Catherine Delahunty to decide if this would happen. Catherine was okay with it, but Mike didn’t agree. So it didn’t happen. End of story!
No-one tried to shaft Nandor. He’s been an effective MP and all of us in the Greens are sad to see him leaving Parliament, and wish he wasn’t.
Vote:May 21st, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Wasnt Brian Connell ‘removed from the party’ by National.
Vote:And before that Donna Awatere was kicked out completely and another list MP replaced her
May 21st, 2008 at 2:37 pm
“Pressuring candidates to stand aside for someone more lowly ranked to become an MP is also anti-democratic and flys in the face of the public making an informed choice by voting for a party with an expectation of who will be MPs.”
The Greens, undemocratic? Preposterous!
Vote:May 21st, 2008 at 2:40 pm
I don’t see a problem here. I’d rather let MPs resign if they don’t want the job than try to compel them to do it unwillingly. If a party choses flakes who can’t live up to their commitment then let the public / media have their say and let the chips fall where they may at the next election. Likewise if someone doesn’t want the job when a list spot comes up then don’t give it to them. The public is smart enough to see through any real gaming of the system. And as the Greens have just found out the party won’t always get its own way. The lesson: choose your MPs and assign the list placings carefully. You’d think a party that makes such a big deal of planning for the future might have managed things a little better, just saying…
Vote:May 21st, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Democracy. That’s for chumps.
Vote:May 21st, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Go Mike – I think that’s really funny. If Russel wants to get around and campaign on his party’s issues then let him bike or hitch-hike. Isn’t that more in keeping with the Green way and wouldn’t that be better than flying at the taxpayers’ expense
Vote:May 21st, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Ghostie
“Wasnt Brian Connell ‘removed from the party’ by National.”
Actually, no. He was not reselected as a candidate, something that has happened to sitting MPs of both Labour and National (remember Benson-Pope?).
This is not remotely similar to the current issue the Greens are facing, which involves a tactical early resignation by a sitting MP, and re-jigging the electoral list to get a particular non-MP into parliament just in time for them to run an election campaign at taxpayers expense.
This is perfectly legal gaming of the electoral rules. Is it principled? The public will decide.
Anyway, its nice of Ghostie to keep his error rate up.
Vote:May 21st, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Roger 1.59 pm, you’re starting to get the idea, good post.
Vote:May 21st, 2008 at 4:38 pm
So what is the problem?… Ward replaces Nandor and another sitting Green MP volunteers to resign so that Norman can take their place.
Vote:May 21st, 2008 at 5:32 pm
RRM
RRM – Nah, it doesn’t matter who the MPS are. You can just say that the party is full of drug-addled communists.
Always remember, in kiwiblog debate you have to keep in mind that: Labour = lesbian communists, and Greens = drugie communists
Could be the first accurate statement you have made, anyway I think your description is pretty accurate, well done.
Vote:May 21st, 2008 at 5:37 pm
This whole list debacle shows the flaw of MMP in that your party vote elects someone you don’t know who can be replaced by manipulation with something worse – imagine Helen replacing an non compliant low list MP with a “Barmy Banana” whose experience is ex Fiji, perhaps as minister for communications, law & Order.
Vote:May 21st, 2008 at 6:36 pm
DPF I think you should consider Roger for his Random Quote
roger nome (3347) +2 Says:
May 21st, 2008 at 1:58 pm
RRM -
“Nah, it doesn’t matter who the MPS are. You can just say that the party is full of drug-addled communists.”
Vote:May 21st, 2008 at 6:38 pm
I enjoyed watching that smarmy communist prick on the news gritting his teeth has he tried to pretend it didn’t matter.
Vote:May 21st, 2008 at 7:16 pm
GWW
“And before that Donna Awatere was kicked out completely and another list MP replaced her”
I am glad (and surprised) that you raised this Ghost, I do not expect you to understand why she was kicked out but I will give it a crack.
Donna was given the boot because she was a crook, I know this is hard for you to follow but stay with me here.
She was dishonest, ACT (and right wing parties in general) expect their members to obey the law, if not they are usually given the boot, now as we know this is not the case with Labour.
Your lot are happy to defend and keep in the house those who assault people, those who drink and drive, those who indulge in slave Labour, those who lie to the Ingram inquiry, those who commit acts of fraud, those who lie repeatedly, those who assault school kids, those who like to walk in on naked school girls…the list goes on.
What we are talking about Ghost are ethics and standards, the right have them while your lot are driven by a shelia who is on record as saying she will do “whatever it takes” to stay in power, ethics and standards are something she (and left wingers in general) know nothing about.
Vote:May 21st, 2008 at 8:53 pm
big bruv the “right” have as much ethics and standards as the “left” i.e. none. Only people have ethics and standard.
also the idea of the party vote is to give your vote to a party that you support and it is their job to pick the people that will best achieve those goals. The electorate seat is where you pick the person you want.
And anyone want to go back to FFP I say Rob Muldoon. What is wrong with proportional representation? I hear John Key say that some proportion is OK, is that as long as those with different opinions to him have the smaller proportion?
Vote:May 21st, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Bloody odd behaviour from Ward.
In Parliament Ward was near invisible and he’s failed to make a mark post-parliament, losing both the Nelson Mayoralty and Green party leadship. Now he’s leaving his legacy as one of sour grapes. Just weird.
Vote:May 22nd, 2008 at 11:05 am
I think Russell Norman should wait before he gets into Parliament, any move of him jumping two on the list to get into the Parliament makes the Greens look even more Bureaucratically liberal than in the past, he and everyone knew he was going to be a co leader outside of Parliament until at least after the 08 election when he became leader…
Vote: