The fix is in
June 4th, 2008 at 7:30 am by David FarrarMike Ward has succumbed to the pressure and has agreed to refuse his place in Parliament so Russel Norman can use taxpayer funded resources to campaign.
I blogged a couple of weeks ago that the Greens were trying to do two things – both of which work sit badly with me. The first is having MPs resign before for their term in Parliament is up, purely for tactical partisan reasons. You rejuvenate a party at elections, not between them.
The second is changing the order of the list post election. The Greens put a lot of stress on the fact their members rank the list, yet they have ignored the will of their members who ranked the 2005 party list – the only one which the public have had a chance to vote on with their party vote.
There is no way one can stop an MP resigning early, but one could have a simple law change to remove the ability for a list candidate to refuse to become an MP. They could still be elected and then resign, but that extra step might stop them from doing private deals to change the effective order of a list post-election.
Related posts:
- Mike Ward refuses to play ball
- Editorial on MMP manipulations
- The Greens Party List
- Dom Post on List Jumping
June 4th, 2008 at 7:38 am
Does this mean Russel Norman has trust issues if he can keep this secret while the Green Party conference was on?
You see him in pictures from the conference smiling away all the time knowing that he has got his way and will soon be living off the taxpayers tit.
Shameful, just shameful.
Vote:June 4th, 2008 at 7:39 am
I’m no fan of the Greens, but they’re in this position because one of their leaders died unexpectedly. When the members ranked the party list and the public voted for it they couldn’t anticipate that Donald would die and Norman wind up as party leader.
[DPF: They chose to make Norman co-leader rather than one of the other MPs. ]
Vote:June 4th, 2008 at 7:54 am
And they talk about the exclusive bretheren being devious.
Vote:June 4th, 2008 at 7:57 am
Danyl,
That’s why there is a list ranking. In the event of a vacancy, EVERYONE below shuffles up a place. The theory presumably is that people are ranked according to their popularity/ability so it makes sense. When the rubber hits the road though, the principles get tested and in this case the greens have been found wanting.
Philu is strangely silent on this! I would have thought that he would be thie first to advocate a stand on integrity and principle. Oh well …. pragmatism rules and dollars drive the decisions. Rusell will be able to charge about the country campaigning at the taxpayers expense to his heart’s content and the world will be in a stable state again.
Vote:June 4th, 2008 at 8:08 am
And that’s very sad, but beside the point. I don’t think I was the only person who cocked an eyebrow when the Greens chose a co-leader outside Parliament, but that was their call and they poo-pooed any suggestion that Norman would have issues raising his profile under such conditions. The Greens also like to boast that their list formation and ranking process is democratic and involves the flaxroots.
Well, where I come from actions have consequences. I sure think every party has people on their lists who, as far as I can tell, only got there through some combo of blackmail, Faustian dealmaking or one Oscar-worthy performance. But here’s the sticking point for me: You put a list before the electorate (and presumably it influences a voter or two) you stick it. I’ve been critical of both Labour and National for gaming the list like this, so why should the Greens get a pass?
Vote:June 4th, 2008 at 8:12 am
Its wrong we have a system where the taxpayer will cough up the election campaign costs of some 7% polling radical who has only been in NZ 11 years.
I note his work experience though:
“Researcher/marker for Unitec Not-for-Profit Management course 2001”
seems well qualified to lead the Greens
Vote:June 4th, 2008 at 8:37 am
Well who’d have thunk it, Wussle Noman and I have something in common.
No one voted for either of us.
Vote:June 4th, 2008 at 8:38 am
Something that would be hilarious:
No. 1. Nandor Resigns, CEO writes to Ms Delahunty who declines to take up the seat, then CEO writes to Mike Ward. Mike says yes, becomes MP.
How about I promise to vote for the Greens if that happens
Vote:June 4th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Another reason (as if we needed it) why the Luddites of the Green party cannot be trusted.
Their party “list” was evidently merely a contrived sequence of names to lull the gullible Green voters into believing who they were voting for. When the inconvenient election part of the process is out of the way, the “party list” can be thrown in the rubbish tin (where it always belonged) and the power-mongers leading the party begin their cynical manipulation of the votes delivered to them (from the sheeple voters) for their own selfish ends.
THe Maori party have also spoken out today about how untrustworthy the Greens are too – the Greens have reneged on their agreement also.
For all of his high minded rhetoric – Norman is showing indecent haste to get his snout into the trough. If he can’t get voted there, he’s more than happy to manipulate the system to get his hands on the money and perks.
Vote:June 4th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Hey be fair 3-coil, hes only got a couple of months of squealing and snuffling at the trough on your dime before he gets the arse along with the rest of them.
Vote:June 4th, 2008 at 8:59 am
Great, our election system in a nutshell. A conference of a few hundred people have manged to get a man in to parliament that was not voted in by any means we know of, via a party that managed to garner, what, 6% of the total vote?
Cronyism had reached it’s ulitmate goal. Democracy has been completely circumvented, and we now have a man in Parliament with absolutely no public mandate, nor, I beleive, any right to be there at all!
NZ has established a new system of government, and we shall call it Demo-farce-y!
Vote:June 4th, 2008 at 9:03 am
LOL @ ROW!! Demo-farce-y – I love it!!
The Greens have shown today that they are no better than any of the other trough-dwellers – principle? Schminciple!
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2008/06/greens-party-of-principle.html
Vote:June 4th, 2008 at 9:04 am
“The Fix is in”?
First thing that came to mind when I read that is the Donald Fagen song I.G.Y (International Geophysical Year) from his album, The Nightfly. Great song!!
Sorry for being off-topic.
Vote:June 4th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Some people like to think of the Greens as harmless, vegetarian, sandal wearing missionaries, spreading the eco message around the world.
In reality they are conniving, politically motivated nutters who have hi-jacked NZ’s Green image for their own political gains.
This decision was made purely to ensure that Russel Norman can campaign using tax payers funds, and to give the Greens more profile during the election.
Their dirty little efforts to fix the election, by pressuring the Maori Party into electoral agreements has also not gone unnoticed.
This from a party that would deny New Zealanders’ their own political freedoms through their support of the EFA.
Do not be fooled. The Greens are slimey, self serving, political parasites.
Vote:June 4th, 2008 at 9:48 am
The redears digest version of democracysmums comment: They’re communists.
Vote:June 4th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Yes Craig, well said. It is entirely beside the point that Rod Donald died and it did seem wierd to me at the time too that Norman was chosen as a ‘co-leader’. God point.
Vote:June 4th, 2008 at 10:19 am
“Researcher/marker for Unitec Not-for-Profit Management course 2001”
I wonder what the course fees for this were and I wonder if Russell got paid for being part of the course? The irony of making a profit out of not-for-profit course makes me smile.
Vote:June 4th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Don’t smile too soon spector…. the whole of new Zealand will soon be a ‘not-for-profit’ enterprise if the Greens have their way and there will be nothing at all to smile about then.
Vote:June 4th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Norman is a very dangerous man, anybody who doubts his real intentions should have a look at this,
http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2006/02/fisking-russel-norman.html
I object to a communist using my money to campaign, I would hope that the media really take the Greens to task over this.
Vote:June 4th, 2008 at 11:06 am
test
Vote:June 4th, 2008 at 11:49 am
He’s going to be on the Back Benches panel tonight. Why not come along to the pub and become part of the (often very vocal) audience?
Vote:June 4th, 2008 at 11:51 am
In conjunction with the Greens proposed deal with the Maori Party to gain the far left far more than they are proportionally allocated
Vote:This shows the Greens true face to be highly undemocratic
They were leading campaigners for MMP as part of the Alliance and now they are trying to rout the system
June 4th, 2008 at 11:58 am
This is a disgraceful manipulation of the parliamentary system and it should be condemned for its cynicism. Key has talked about a referendum on MMP and this is a bloody good reason why it should happen. Have the Nats commented ? – if not then they should and do so strongly. The Greens are insidious but they get a free ride from all and sundry. They misrepresent the Green tag they carry and noone should vote for them.
Vote:June 4th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
“The redears digest version of democracysmums comment”
Anyone have an English translation of Murrays latest?
Vote:June 4th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Lets stick to these wankers
Vote:http://www.carbonbelchday.com
June 4th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Fuck off you snivling little smudge of anal leakage in the underpants of humanity.
The karma alone tells you that everyone else actually is able to communicte withour help from Helens bitch boy from scotland.
McDickhead
[DPF: Down Murray down.]
Vote:June 4th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Right of way is Way of Right says:
But way back in 1996… over a decade ago… Michael Laws, Winston Peter and Sarah Neems threw their party’s list rankings into the rubbish, drew up a list which stabbed capable people in the back whose only crime was “disloyalty” to Laws and promoted a bunch of no-hopers (the one whose only achievement was getting her nose pierced while in office; the one whose nose went straight into the trough and off to Paris to shop with our money…)
The ranking of Party Lists has been a farce since our very first MMP election. There are no laws governing how it’s done; there are no laws to even ensure that the parties do it the way they say they’re going to do it.
Today’s fraud by the Greens isn’t the first to be perpetrated on voters, nor will it be the last. In fact it might be said that it is at least a transparent fraud, whereas the many others undertaken, I’d wager, by every other party might not have been so egregious but they were carried out in secret. A push up the rank for a favoured candidate here, a word in the selector’s ear by the Leader there…
If we’re angered by what the Greens have done – and we should be – then fight for a law change which makes list ranking a right of every party member, and an open process with scrutineers. If it’s good enough for a General Election it’s good enough for a list ranking.
Vote:June 4th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Why are National Party supporters angered by what the Greens have done? It can’t be out of concern for the democratic rights of Greens (or anyone else) as you also hope to wipe those off the political map entirely by dumping MMP.
It can’t be because the Greens aren’t democratic internally.
Every Green Party member voted on the ranking of the entire 2005 list.
Russel Norman was ranked 10th – a high place.
Every Green Party member voted in 2006 on who was to be the new male co-leader: Russel Norman.
Every Green Party member voted just a few weeks ago on the ranking for the entire 2008 party list. Norman was placed even higher after that.
These are things National Party members can’t do. Their party isn’t open and democratic enough to allow such practices. hen was the last time a leader was elected by all party members?
So your outrage over what Greens have done is utterly misplaced. Greens are very happy to have their male co-leader in the House, to support Jeanette Fitzsimons and the rest of the Parliamentary team.
The record shows that Russel Norman has been repeatedly and democratically endorsed as a representative by Green Party members – at the last election and since.
In countries that use First Past the Post, a new party leader (like Canada’s past Conservative party leader, Brian Mulroney) enters the House of Commons after some loyal MP vacates his safe seat for a by-election to rubber stamp the new party leader. By convention, the other major party does not even stand a candidate.
The Green Party have done nothing inappropriate. Instead, they have done what will best represent Green Party voters and brought their co-leader into the House by the rules as laid down in the electoral law. That is what representatives are supposed to do: represent.
By every measure I’m aware, the Green Party run a more open and democratic shop than the National Party does. National Party supporters slagging the Greens off should perhaps devote some of that energy to seeking a more open democratic method of ranking list candidates within their own party. As it is, only one electorate gets to vote on any one of those on the list and has no say over rankings….and up to 5 others are chosen out of thin air by party head office.
Greens would be outraged by such undemocratic practices.
Perhaps it’s a culture thing. Greens practice the widest possible democracy internally and support MMP, while the National Party practices its own, more limited form, of internal democratic franchise and at the same time agitates to get rid of MMP……out of self interest….thus deriving Greens (and most other parties) of ANY representation at all!
Hypocrisy very much in evidence…..but the shade appears to be distinctly blue.
Vote:June 4th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Steve Withers
That is utter bullshit, you conveniently overlooked the fact that it is the public who elects it parliamentary representatives not the fucking Green party.
The Greens received 5% of the vote based on the 2005 list, for the Greens to now change that list around to suit the coming election is disgusting, as is your pathetic justification.
I could not give a toss what the Green want or how they select their list, to promote Comrade Norman over two higher ranking list candidates just so he can use my money to campaign is at best dishonest and at worst corrupt.
As for you claims that the Greens are the most democratic party, what a lot of crap, they cannot even be honest about their true intentions, their new co leader cannot even come clean about his communist past, a truly democratic party would not have supported the EFA or forced section 59 on us.
Vote:June 4th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
The greens are well past their use by date !!
Vote:June 4th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
big bruv: “the public” as far as the Greens are concerned is the people who voted for it. That would not include you. Your outrage is therefore misplaced. We operate a representative democracy in this country and MMP allows us to hold BOTH local representatives AND parties to account via separate votes. That wasn’t possible under FPP. It is a huge improvement. People who still don’t understand MMP obviously struggle with the whole concept of improved accountability under MMP.
The Greens have only list MPs, so the ONLY relevant vote is the party list vote….and it was cast for EVERY person on that list – as a group. One vote elected many MPs. I think that’s pretty good. Certainly better than we ever could do under FPP. Don’t hiss and spit at me…..that’s just how it works.
You dismiss the internal democracy of the Greens while criticising them as undemocratic. That is a contortion of logic I can’t repeat and won’t attempt. I’ll leave you there in that awkward posture on your own.
It is true under ANY voting system that if you aren’t a member of a party, you don’t get to choose its candidates. Why you would pretend anything else was the case is a mystery to me.
d4j: That s your opinon. Fortunately, all the available evidence suggests it is an incorrect opinion. Greens are polling higher this elections cycle than in the last. That suggests you are wrong, but we won’t know for sure until after the election.
Vote:June 4th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
I wonder how much more CO2 Mr Norman will now produce as a MP now it is on the taxpayers tab ?? How much of this CO2 will be produced by him travelling to places to tell other people how we should be paying more tax to save the planet from the ravages of global warming. I like the idea of a Green lobby group helping to create policy to promote sustainability and smarter use of our resources… but a far left group made up of ex communists is not what I had in mind…
Vote:June 4th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
It appears that the Greens are disgusted by the other partys’ vote-catching activities, and their neglect either of principles, or if they don’t share their principles, the idea that they are too stupid to have them.
“It is bottom feeding – a self-interested, vote-catching race, and it’s simply disgusting – a disgusting retreat from principle by Labour and a disgusting return to simpering denial by National.”
says Russell Norman.
This from the Party that endorsed the Election Finance Act.
but let’s analyse the philosophical view endorsed here. It at once manages to patronise and be smug, without delivering any message of intent, while at the same time displaying an arrogance and disregard for the voter.
I can only imagine that this was after Russell Norman got the email telling him that his seat in Parliament was secure
“Mr Ward ….. told Mr Norman of his change of mind in an email on the eve of the party’s conference last weekend – which Mr Ward did not attend – but asked for it not to be made public.”
So Russell doesn’t really need votes, does he?
Vote:Lee – MWT
June 4th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Leave him be… he’s reading about how cannabis can shrink the brain
Vote:June 4th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Norman is nothing more than a repackaged commie who likes to take pot shots at the businesses which underpin New Zealand’s economic well being.
His main target is Fonterra and he complains in his latest speech that:
“We are extremely frustrated about (principle having surrendered to politics), not only because New Zealand is failing to meet its Kyoto obligations, but because of the huge cost on taxpayers and the environment. The Sustainability Council estimates the subsidy being paid by taxpayers to the dairy industry is around $1.3billion.
And that’s just in the first five years.”
Well, even if we take the so-called Sustainability Council, who Dr Norman so authoritatively quotes, at its word (in fact they are really just another self appointed lobbyist group), back of the envelope calculations run a bit like this.
Alleged subsidy by taxpayers $1.3B / 5 years = $260m per year.
This years increased payout to farmers over forecast is 60/kg MS x 100,000kg avg production x 11,000 farmers = $660m
39% extra tax paid at the margin = $257.4m
Some subsidy eh? Piss off and pour soy milk into your next latte, Dr Norman and leave the real work to the farmers.
Vote:June 4th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Steve Withers
It does not matter how you try and justify this disgusting piece of deception by the Green party “the public” voted for the Greens on the basis of the 2005 list, simply put the Greens do not have a mandate from the public to abuse the electoral system in this fashion.
I suspect that many who did vote were keen to see Nandor in the house, if they wanted Comrade Norman then it is a fair bet that the Greens would have received more than 5%.
Your comments re MMP being democratic are laughable, under the stupid system we have the Greens have far more say than their level of support should allow, they are able to force unwanted socialist/communist policy onto those of us who did not vote Green this time (95%), how on earth could even the biggest Green sycophant justify that as being democratic?
I can assure you that my “outrage” is not misplaced, the Greens are effectively manipulating the system to steal more of my tax dollars so they can allow Comrade Norman to campaign at MY expense, the Green party obviously have not learnt from the last election where they (along with others) were guilty of stealing my money to campaign, I can only hope and pray that the voting public do not forget this theft nor the scant disregaurd your party has shown to the will of the people.
You are right in that I did not vote Green at the last election, however there was a time (once) when I did, sadly like so many others I was conned into thinking that the Greens were interested in clean rivers and lakes and doing something about animal welfare (my number one concern), the election of Comrade Norman and the impending election of Comrade Bradford to the co leaders position has proven that you do not give a toss about animal welfare, the Greens have become nothing more than the Alliance in drag.
Vote:June 4th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
I recall in 1996 a by-election in Hawkes Bay was avoided when Parliament resolved not to fill the vacancy left by Michael Law’s resignation – does anyone know if this rule still exists, and what % of Parliament is required to approve it? Could be nervous times for the Greens if someone files the motion!
Vote:June 4th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
The party list is for people who the party think can best achieve their goals and the electoral seat is for the public to pick who they like best. If you like a parties policy you vote for the party not necessarily the people it is very simple. The main reason is so you can pick capable people who may not want to kiss babies and shake hands, did Don Brash stand in an electorate seat?
Lets face it it is very rare for an electorate to pick an individual over a party goon anyway
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 8:27 am
DPF said: “…but one could have a simple law change to remove the ability for a list candidate to refuse to become an MP.”
DPF, your suggestion ignores the fact that circumstances change for candidates. For a start, when the Greens ranked the 2005 list, no-one anticipated that Rod Donald would die. It was that event that triggered this whole scenario. And someone who was keen to be an MP in 2005 may have reprioritied his or her interests, and have no interest in being an MP in 2008.
I don’t see anything wrong with parties rejuvenating their image by having MPs who want to depart going before the election, and giving the new ones who replace them a chance to establish their profile.
And I think there is something undemocratic about forcing someone to take up a seat in Parliament that they no longer want, which is your suggestion. Even three or four months in Parliament is likely to be seriously disruptive of a person getting on with his or her life. While I would like to be optimistic and say that at No 14 on the 2008 list, Mike Ward has a good chance of getting into Parliament this time around, current polling would not indicate that is likely. What is the point of having a lame duck MP for a few months?
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 8:32 am
“What is the point of having a lame duck MP for a few months?”
………….to keep the other 5 company?
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Some days the bitch needs a good bitch slapping Dave.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Toad
You are obviously a bit sensitive about this cynical act by the Greens, it has been “news” for two days now and you have not raised it as an issue on your own website.
Why is that?
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Dunno, bruv – I don’t run the Green website! But my speculation is that there are still things to be worked out around dates etc. Nandor had presumably rearranged his life on the basis he would be staying on till the next election. There’s also letters to be written to the Speaker etc, which take time.
Another reason may be that while “the game” may be “news” to the media, we in the Greens prefer to focus on emphasising policy. I wasn’t really very interested in whatever way the Nandor/Mike/Russel thing went, other than that it had the potential to be a distration from the real issues like the continuing inaction by Labour and proposed inaction by National on climate change and the fact that an increasing number of New Zealanders can’t afford fuel or healthy food for their families.
So pleased to see it looks like it will soon be resolved.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Ah, I see that frog has now posted re this topic on frogblog.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Toad
Your (the Green parties) arrogance is breath taking, it is all well and good to muse about how Nandor needs to rearrange his life however the issue here is the cynical manipulation of our electoral system simply so Comrade Norman can campaign at my expense.
Where is your mandate?
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Toad said ” ….. There’s also letters to be written to the Speaker etc, which take time. …”
Aaaah Toad your lack of a decent education shows. It should have been “There are letters …. ” and anyway how long does it take to write “I quit”?
Try having a decent argument on the principles for a change, instead of trotting out this speciously defensive BS.
The fact remains that the self proclaimed party-of-principle has thrown the party list in the faces of those who voted for them in the last election. A list that should have been valid through till the 2008 election. A list that has a mechanism to cope with resignations, ill health or death of an MP, and for what? Simply put to enable access to a greater level of taxpayer funding for a leader who was appointed while not an MP and who now wishes to campaign throughout the country at the taxpayers’ expense.
Funnily enough I don’t think anyone would expect the other parties to act exactly in this manner but the Greens have just shot their credibility as a party-of-principle totally full of holes.
Sure Norman was raised up the list for the 2008 election, quite legitimately, and thats where he should have stayed put.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 10:50 am
david: What is not principled about doing what the law permits and expects and waht the Green Party supported the law permitting and expecting? Nandor decided it would be better for Russel to be there in his place, Catherine Delehunty decided similarly, and so (eventually) did Mike Ward. So it happens.
Electoral Act 1993, s 137:
It would be unprincipled for a party to have campaigned and voted against this provision, and then exercised it (as ACT did with other Electoral Act provisions when they gave Donna Awatere-Huatua the heave-ho), but the Greens do not disapprove of s 137.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Oh, and david, it’s a bit picky to pull me up on my grammar isn’t it, given some of the barely intelligible rubbish that is often published in comments here?
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Hiding behind the strict letter of the law then are you Toad?
What a pity that you did not see things that way when it came to the 2005 election overspend.
Hypocrisy…. thy name is Green.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 11:09 am
The Greens did big bruv – they were among the first to pay the money back after the Auditor-General made his determination – even though there was no legal obligation to do so. That was an honest mistake in interpretation of the rules that was made by most political parties. The Greens did that long before National sorted out its GST debacle with their broadcasting funding. And have NZ First paid back their overspend yet? Haven’t quite kept up with that one.
Vote:June 5th, 2008 at 11:18 am
“pull me up on my grammar isn’t it, given some of the barely intelligible rubbish ”
Is that an ironic oxymoron?
Vote: