Another 5% result for the Greens
September 28th, 2008 at 10:00 pm by David FarrarI have been saying for some time that the Greens should be polling much higher than they are – picking up “ethical left” voters disgusted with Labour who can not bring themselves to vote centre-right.
But they continue to hover on the brink of electoral oblivion. Look at the five polls in September:
- TVNZ – 5.0%
- TV3 – 5.0%
- Roy Morgan – 6.5%
- NZ Herald 4.9%
- Fairfax – 5.0%
So four of the five polls have the Greens on the edge of disaster, and the campaign starts next week.
If I were the Greens, I would be asking where they can easiest gain votes from. The answer seems obvious.
Related posts:
- Are the Greens in danger of extinction?
- Roy Morgan and NZ First
- Greens aim to win Mt Albert with Norman
- TV Polls
September 28th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
ummmmmm….. Toad Hall?
Vote:September 28th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
“ethical left” ???????
Vote:Leftists have ethics????????
Next thing David, you’ll tell us they have morals and values!!!
September 28th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
People are awakening to the fact that a vote for the Watermelons is a vote for a huge increase in the cost of living. In these times, who in their right mind wants that??
Vote:September 28th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Err, people who don’t pay for their own living?
(e.g. Philu….)
Vote:September 28th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
They have become an illegal stock item, and surplus to requirements!
Who needs to have weidry beardy lentil munching, tree huggers, trying to lay down acres of guilt on how we live.
Main Stream Parties have conceded huge policy leapfrogs already, and there is only so much sentimental crap
that you need in life.
This reflects the watermelons fate in ALL the European Countries with PR or FFP. In NZ they have been tainted by the Paintergate, Speedgate, Winstongate, kerfuffles.
And as Red said, they represent a shockingly massive increase in the cost of living for everyone, and economic oblivion for up to 30% of farms and small business in rural communities.
Vote:September 28th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
I’d rather see the Greens with the votes than Labour. The Greens at least stand for something – even if I don’t often agree with it.
Of course, from a pure right wing point of view there is a win-win here – either the Greens just miss out (and waste all those left wing votes), or they steal some votes from Labour and both cause tension in the left camp, as well as dragging Labour down further.
DPF – if I didn’t know better I’d think you were flat out stirring.
Vote:September 28th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
This might help…
http://www.dontvotegreens.org.nz/
Vote:September 28th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
The beatniks deserve a good sandal slapping.
I was checking the herald snapshot of what some random people will vote. There are some real dopies out there, and they mostly vote labour. Seems immigrants go for labour too .
Here is one guys comments….
Huinga Mete, 57, tour driver, Kawakawa, staying with Labour: ‘I’m still getting tucker on the table, but I’m worried about unemployment and the exodus to Australia. I have a family that have taken off there.I’m about ready to go.’ Photo / Richard Robinson
So, his whole family buggers off to Aus , and, he has decided things are so shit that hes going too, yet he still votes labour. What a clown!!
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 3:00 am
A vote for the Greens is a first class express ticket to Cosmic Twinky Playland.
Tele Tubbies now have serious competition.
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 5:46 am
I wonder if the fact that so many young people only have cellphones may have an influence- are the Greens perhaps strongest amongst that community, and therefore not showing in the polls? Or are their supporters all too stoned to register?
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 5:54 am
Everybody knows the greens are wasted spaces. Please eradicate these pathetic pests from parliament.
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 5:58 am
Good point GMM. Polls are less and less accurate due to cellphones and answerphones. Many under 25s only use cellphones.
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 6:48 am
Ethical voters will stay the hell away from the control-obsessed, antipatriotic Greens who stop at nothing to ram through their hardline socialist agenda
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 6:49 am
The Watermelons also tend to leap ahead in the special vote count – they scraped in in 2005 once these were counted. Expat special voters won’t be included in these polls either. The Greens seem to have an active London contingent pushing their barrow.
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 6:57 am
Those who grasp at the cell phone straw should have a look at some recent research out of the US which shows that the voting pattern of ‘cell phone only’ voters almost identically reflects that of the rest of the population. Nice theory, chaps but bad result. And they’ll need more than a few London barrow boys!
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 7:17 am
Memorandum
To: philu
From: Self
Subject: Polls
The TV3 Poll which usually has a slight bias towards Labour has National up, Labour and Greens down. What have we done wrong? Why isn’t our smear campaign on John Key getting traction? Have we made a mistake in resorting to dirty politics rather than concentrating on our undoubted success … EFA, ETS, Cullen Fund, KiwisSaver etc. Ooooops, hold on the Cullen Fund perhaps and didn’t my neighbour just tell me that every $1 he has invested in KiwiSaver is now worth 88c.
So where to from here? Ok so we made a tactical error in tying ourselves to Winston First but we’ve fixed that by making the free rides for seniors look like our idea. Reminder … just how to we respond to the ‘oldee’ from Kaitaia who wrote to say there was no ‘off peak’ hour public transport to Whangarei/Auckland. Easy, we just forget about rural NZ.
No, we need a new brilliant initiative that will capture the imagination …. something like writing off all student loans. They’re only a ‘book entry’ afterall so its not real money is it? The down side to that is it might be seen as a bribe and resented by all those who have worked to pay off their loans … something else then … got it. Helen announces her intention to take holy orders and denounces National/ACT as instruments of the devil and in one stroke picks up the entire christian vote. Get me the Pope now, quick.
Plan B is to go down to MSD and get an advance on my benefit so I can buy some rope.
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 7:19 am
Ran into The Greens this weekend at a local market. Who’d have guessed that an aging bloke selling parsley was the front for a communist political party? I have no problem with people not using chemicals when growing their herbs, but the public facade of the green party is so far divorced from the political arm that I’d have no trouble pulling the trigger on any of them.
Tell me, if they have a tent/awning with the greens logo on it and a candidate for the election present, do they have to display an authorisation notice somewhere? And if they continue to break the law they voted for, who do I notify?
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 7:37 am
I’d like to see the Green consigned to NZ’s political history.
They are an idiosyncratic bunch of hard-left socialists, uber control freaks and the ideologically blinded environmentalists all locked together in a desperate bid to sneak over the 5%.
The part of their vote which worries me is expat Kiwis, living in smoggy cities aboard and looking to assuage their consciences with a little environmental balot box flutter… thereby leaving us with the likes of Comrade Bradford.
Expat Kiwis: DO NOT VOTE GREEN. PLEASE. PLEASE. PLEASE
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 7:50 am
The Greens are going to be feeling the heat from these polls. It’d be interesting to see how they respond. At the moment the party seems rather rudderless – it doesn’t really have a strategy or direction. This is due to the fact that for some time it’s been (erroneously) assumed that the party will always get 5% and that the party naturally has a unique selling point and “brand” that will make it relevant. This has made the party rather lazy, but now that those assumptions are refuted by opinion polls and by the other mainstream parties credibly taking up environmental issues, the Green Party is lurching around unsure of how to proceed.
DPF says, ‘If I were the Greens, I would be asking where they can easiest gain votes from. The answer seems obvious.’ I assume he means: ‘from Labour’, and this does indeed make some sense. The Labour Party is a decaying, empty ship at the moment. Not since 1990 has there been this opportunity for some sort of “ethical left” vehicle to take advantage of the tide going out on Labour. In theory the Greens have their best chance ever of getting 10+ percent in the coming election. They seem to be squandering the easy opportunity.
But instead of chasing disgruntled “ethical left” votes, my prediction is that the Greens will actually go after disgruntled “economic nationalist” NZ First voters. Increasingly there’s been a lot in common between the Greens and NZ First. In a sense they are both populist parties that pretend to be radical and anti-establishment. So, look out for the Greens campaigning against free trade, “rich” immigrants, big business, and with some conspiracy-type stuff about unsafe food, and about how Labour and National are just the same but the Greens aren’t.
Bryce
Vote:http://www.liberation.org.nz
September 29th, 2008 at 7:51 am
So we’re losing our best and brightest overseas, but at the same time they’re emotive slack jawed fools?
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 7:59 am
stephen, what bollocks.
many intelligent expats vote with their hearts, and not with their brains.
those that have neither stay here and vote Green.
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 8:01 am
“many intelligent expats vote with their hearts, and not with their brains. ”
Doesn’t that make them un-intelligent then?
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 8:23 am
Rod Donald was, by far, the best thing that the Greens had going for them. He made his name as the voice of MMP, and then successfully transferred that to the Greens. Russell Norman just doesn’t have anything like the gravitas, nor the profile.
They are also increasingly a provincial party: their vote in Auckland is well down on their national average, presumably because Aucklanders just don’t like a party that keeps telling them that cars are bad. With the continual urbanisation and, in particular, “Aucklandisation” of New Zealand, this does not bode well for the lentil eaters.
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 8:23 am
stephen – not at all. Misguided or uninformed perhaps. But not necessarily un-intelligent
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Lets face it, the Greens stopped being an environmental party some time ago, ever since the demise of Rod Donald the party have been hijacked by Alliance refugees and hard left communists.
They are always going to be the party who attracts nut bars and Pol Pot sympathizers but at least they used to be concerned about our waterways and the NZ environment, most Kiwi’s have a real concern for OUR environment and want to see it maintained, had the Greens stuck with local environmental issues they would be assured of a permanent place in our parliament.
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 8:51 am
I think Rod Donald and to a lesser extent Nandor, gave the Greens a brand identity that had appeal.
Having checked out their Conservation policy, compared to Nationals (still waiting for Labours, but still have 2005 to go by), it has to be said there’s not a lot of points of difference. Everybody’s in favour of conservation, everyone wants the private sector (community groups, iwi) to do a bit more, and everyone wants the Govt to do a bit more.
If you can’t define and defend a unique selling point on conservation to a lentil-munching, cyclist and conservationist like myself, then your brand has seriously withered.
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 8:52 am
Last time the greens scrapped 5% the incompetent Green leaders excused their poodle status by telling their bozo base that peak oil & climate change are just around the corner and the Greens time is just about to arrive.
It looks like that peak oil & climate change is just around the corner yet again.
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 8:58 am
georgebolwing is right about Rod Donald. He was a voice of (comparative) reason within the Greens and came across to the public as pretty non-threatening. The rest of them have too much whiff of wild-eyed radicalism and otherworldliness about them. Since Rod’s death the Greens have become more extreme.
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 9:02 am
So much for the so called brilliant billboards…maybe being too clever misses the point?
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 9:10 am
The media have a role in the future of the Greens, given that the female co leader has said this is her last term and even hinted that she will not see out the full three years the media need to focus on her likely replacement.
The people of NZ need to be made aware that the new female co leader will more than likely be Comrade Bradford, it would be unethical and downright dishonest to enter an election race without telling the people of NZ who you are actually voting for.
I am sure that the prospect of Comrade Bradford as co leader would be enough to see the Greens fall below the 5% threshold.
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Depends who the members vote for – wouldn’t rule out Turei for the ‘fresh face’ aspect.
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 9:40 am
so why is the Roy Morgan poll always so whack?
If the greens want to do well, they need to get rid of the Bradford albatross, instead of trying to sell her successes to the voters (omitting of course anything about S.59 – they couldn’t be honest now could they?).
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 11:26 am
BigBruv, the Greens need to not just stick to environmental issues, they need to accept that progress is not automatically bad for it and is actually enormously advantageous in our ability to save it. Otherwise, they are just doing a whole lot of activism that is actually making the environment worse, unintended consequences, etc, and one is entitled to suspect that they are actually more about all the Commie stuff than they are about the environment at all.
And I hope Kiwis are waking up to this. We need the writings of Patrick Moore and Bjorn Lomborg on this subject, both Greenies who have seen the light and who deal in facts and realities, not myths and lies.
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
I think a large proportion of the Green vote the cuddly environmental vote – the people who don’t know much about the environment, so don’t know the Green’s ideas are impractical, and just vote for them for the sake of the cute cuddly animals. Even some Christians vote Green, despite their anti-Christian moral stance, because they feel the environment is so important. There are obviously hard-line communists and greenies who are well informed and still like the Green parties ideas, but these wouldn’t get over 5% without the cute and cuddly vote.
For the approach being taken by a party that deeply cares about the environment, but doesn’t want loads of stupid laws, check out the latest environmental policy release from The Family Party.
http://sjdennis.wordpress.com/2008/09/29/family-party-environment-policy/
Summary:
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
HERE is a very sensible approach to Climate Change from a government: in India:
(From “Satanic Gas” by Ray Evans in the latest “Quadrant” Magazine)
“……Although virtually no Western political leaders have attacked the campaign to demonise carbon, in the East governments have a very different view of the world. On June 30, 2008, Manmohan Singh outlined eight key elements of India’s National Plan on Climate Change, a report which he launched that day at a meeting of India’s National Council for Climate Change. Most of the press coverage in India focused on India’s determination to proceed down the path of rapid economic growth, and given that serious riots had occurred two months previously in Uttar Pradesh, when police fired teargas to disperse crowds which had blocked roads and railway lines, attacked police vehicles, set fire to an electricity transformer and attacked electricity workers, such a focus was more than justified. The cause of the riots was the failure of the electricity supply authorities to provide power for prolonged periods during a serious heat-wave. More than 250 people were arrested.
It is an indictment of Australia’s media that there was virtually no press coverage in Australia of Singh’s statement and its implications. Only the Herald-Sun’s Andrew Bolt commented on the story. An important comment in the Indian document was the dismissal of the IPCC “science” on global warming with the following words: “No firm link between the documented changes described here and warming due to anthropogenic climate change has been observed.”
The report then discussed changes in surface temperatures, rainfall, extreme weather events, changes in sea level, and changes in the Himalayan glaciers. On the glaciers the report stated:
“The available monitoring data on Himalayan glaciers indicates while some recession of glaciers has occurred in some Himalayan regions in recent years, the trend is not consistent across the entire mountain chain. It is accordingly, too early to establish long-term trends or their causation, in respect of which there are several hypotheses.”
By contrast, the IPCC says of Himalayan glacier melt: “The receding and thinning of Himalayan glaciers can be attributed primarily to the global warming due to increase in anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases.”
The other major points in the Indian document were:
• The need for energy to meet the developmental aspirations of the people;
• The need to promote energy efficiency and develop alternative sources of energy;
• The right of every citizen of the planet to have an equal share of the planetary atmospheric space;
• Rejection of any national emission target.
Singh reiterated these points at a meeting of the G5 held immediately before the meeting of the G8 that was held in Hokkaido in mid-July. On July 9 he said:
“The first and overriding priority of all developing countries is poverty eradication. More than 600 million people in India are still without access to modern energy sources and a quarter of our population lives on less than a dollar a day.
Vote:“The imperative for accelerated growth is even more urgent when we consider the disproportionate impact of climate change on us as a developing country with little choice but to devote even more and huge resources to adaptation in critical areas of food security, public health and management of scarce water resources.
“And, this comes at a time when we are faced with an ever increasing energy bill putting our energy security at extreme risk.
“Sustained and accelerated economic growth is, therefore, critical for all developing countries and we cannot for the present even consider quantitative restrictions on our emissions …
“India is determined that even as we pursue our economic growth and development, our per-capita emissions will not go beyond those of the developed countries.”………”
September 29th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
“You will notice that our environmental policy is much shorter than that of many other parties. ”
Yeah, because it doesn’t say anything at all? Abolish, create, reduce, increase – nope, just platitudes! Gunning for the “people who don’t know much about the environment” vote?
The Greens aren’t anti-christian, they just don’t have the same values as some christians. Like saying i’m anti-Mormon for being monogamous – in blatant defiance of god’s will.
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
There low polling is probably due to their concentration on Communistic policies at the expense of environmental policies. Their capitulation to Liarbour and as well the loss of Nandor would lose them the support of the potheads. I still expect them to do well from the indoctrinated kids leaving school convinced that the wrinklies are killing the planet.
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Stephen: It is a commitment to fewer laws, and a focus on community- and industry-led solutions to issues. We want industries and communities to have the opportunity to fix issues first, before proposing legislation – therefore we don’t include such legislation in our policy.
The point of the policy IS that we aren’t proposing more legislation, then you criticise us for not proposing more legislation – you can’t win. If we did propose more legislation you’d criticise us for it not being quite right.
And that is the whole point – it is very difficult for the government to get the legislation just right. Which is why we are proposing community solutions first, with legislation as a last resort.
If a party believes it is the government’s job to fix everything, they will have policies full of terms like abolish, ban, promote etc. If you want more ineffective bans, vote Green. We however feel it is first the job of the community to fix problems, so aren’t proposing more legislation, yet. If the community doesn’t fix it, then we’ll put in place legislation.
This is a very serious, sensible approach, but it goes against the grain of the current culture of banning stuff. I think The Family Party take on the issue is a very refreshing change.
Vote:September 29th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Yes, what you say is how I read in between the lines, but why should one have to? So why don’t you say that instead of this example of super-vagueness?
I imagine if you want simplification you would at least want to repeal legislation (I should’ve added that to “abolish, create” etc), or abolish stuff like certain government powers, as I get the impression you aren’t happy with the current situation. But you just want the status quo with nothing more in future or what?
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 3:08 am
The Green’s are silly and should be kicked out of parliament. The ETS fiasco was shameful.
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 7:12 am
Its Greens, not Greens’
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 9:29 am
I think Dennis, the main problem here is the mesh of environmental law- going back to the Wildlife Act 1953- that is going to hinder the devolution of control to local communities/groups. You will need a program of legislative change.
The other problem- and this is shared at least by the Greens (given my perusal of their policy page)- is that there’s not much on native biodiversity. So I’m presuming everyone believes that things are ticking over nicely in the conservation estate.
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Stephen, I gather you haven’t read the speech, just the summary.
Chthoniid, I completely agree about past legislation. We are already proposing reviewing the RMA. As a young minor party outside parliament we don’t currently have the resources to determine well what other laws require change, as I am sure you can appreciate, so right now we are putting forward our philosophy (less legislation, favour community initiatives) and a few basic proposals. Once in parliament we will have the time and resources to look into past legislation in detail to ensure we get any changes right.
Our commitment to fewer new laws is already far better than anything offered by anyone else, before we even start to look at past legislation. But that must certainly be the next step.
If you do have some specific suggestions I would love to hear them, email me at samuel.dennis@familyparty.org.nz. If you’re in Canterbury we may be able to catch up in person.
Vote:October 1st, 2008 at 12:09 pm
I’m afraid I’m not in Canterbury.
I’m generally happy to talk about conservation issues however. To date I’ve managed Chinese Communists, American Libertarians, DoC, Maori, RNZ and the occasional political group. I think at the very least we need a review of the Wildlife Act. This is actually a very old piece of legislation and now (IMO) poorly suited to deal with some of the problems we face.
Consider that Hamilton Zoo was recently in the news about breeding kea. This is not in fact (biologically) difficult. What made it interesting was that DoC permitted them to breed these kea. During the early 1990s, we’ve had seasons when DoC only permitted 2 kaka to breed (amongst captive facilities) in the country, and that was to inform the kakapo breeding program. In effect we have a whole of legislation that exists for the purpose of ‘stopping conservation’ and it is being used for that purpose.
I hope to do some blogging on it before the election.
Vote: