Greens and Mt Albert
I’ve been thinking about what I would do if I was the Greens, in Mt Albert.
My strategy would be to actually try and win the seat. There is no party vote at stake here – it is about the electrate only. No prizes for honourable second.
Mt Albert is already one of the strongest seats for the Greens. So how would they get Labour voters to vote for the Green candidate? Apart from the fact it won’t bring Judith Tizard back into Parliament?
You make two cases to the voters of Mt Albert:
- It is almost impossible for Labour to be able to form a future Government unless the Greens are in Parliament. Former partners such as the Alliance and NZ First have disappeared and United Future and Progressive and one MP parties now. The Maori Party is currently very hostile, but even with the Maori Party, Labour without the Greens would need more votes than it has ever got before. Bottom line is Labour needs the Greens in Parliament.
- The Greens need the safety net of an electorate seat. They are the only party in Parliament without an electorate seat. In two of the last four elections, they have just scraped in above 5%. If they drop below 5% with no electorate seat they are out of Parliament, and may never return.
Voters can grasp how to be strategic in MMP. They did it in 1996 in Wellington Central and 2005 in Epsom. No reason Mt Albert can’t do it in 2009.
So the Greens should go all out to win the seat. So who do they stand? The next candidate on their list, David Clendon, lives in (or near) Mt Albert I think, but he isn’t a heavy hitter. A by-election is like a mini general election in just one seat.
Normally I would say stand a co-leader. But we don’t know who the female co-leader will be in time for the by-election, and Russel Norman is too well associated with Wellington (and Australia!).
So ideally the Greens want a high profile Greenie, who has a strong association with Auckland. Someone who would appeal to more than their traditional younger and wealthy supporters, but also working class Labour supporters.
I think I have it.
Robyn Malcolm for Mt Albert!
April 16th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
It’s a very good point you make DPF, that the Greens need a safe seat. Their best performance was in Wellington Central though – so perhaps at the next election they might consider standing Russel Norman there and get all strategic with Labour. I can’t really see the Greens winning Mt Albert, though I guess your hope is to encourage a split of the centre-left vote so National might win it.
[DPF: I thought Russel should have stood in WC last time]
April 16th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
I agree with your logic DPF. But … even if the Greens did this I doubt they could get enough votes to win the seat.
I’ve been interested to see the interplay so far between Labour and the Greens on this bye-election. I confess I haven’t been able to follow it as closely as I’d normally do, but it does seem to have had tones of Labour trying to bully the Greens into not standing a candidate, and the Greens being careful – even deferential – about their responses to Labour. I can see why Labour would be trying it on, pushing the Greens around. But why are the Greens behaving like battered wife syndrome? FFS, the Greens don’t owe Labour anything. They should be standing a strong candidate and trying to win as many votes as they can. Like you say, this is a strong electorate for them. They should be running at this as hard as they can.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Ack. Ssshhh on the Malcolm thing. She might actually be able to do it. Outrageous.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
I can only see good things here for the Nats. In scenario 1 the ban-everything brigade put up a good candidate and actually win the seat. That’s one less Labour seat, which is only a good thing. In scenario 2 Twyford wins the seat for Labour, bringing Tizard back in and guaranteeing the Nats at least another 2 terms. In scenario 3 the ban-everything brigade put up a good candidate and split the vote with Labour, allowing the Nats to scoot in. That’s one less Labour seat, which is only a good thing. Altogether no upside here for Labour.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
I’m sure Robyn Malcolm is far too sensible to want to be a politician.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Genius.
You might be onto something….
April 16th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Many a true word spoken in jest, hmmm? Isn’t it?
April 16th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Or Rob Hamill – stood for the first time last election in TKC so obviously does want to actually be in parliament and does have profile. Would appeal to a broader voter base.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
But but but. The Greens poll strongly but not strong enough, split the vote and let National in.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
so Robyn…do you want to stand for the greens in Mt Albert?
http://www.tv3.co.nz/Portals/0-Articles/12833/of4_robyn_180.jpg
April 16th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
I’d love to see Norman standing in Wellington Central in 2011. It was only because of green strategic voting that Stephen Franks didnt win this time so if the Greens had to vote for someone they supported (who knows why) we might actually see a decent MP.
April 16th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
They can stand Kermit the frog.
Makes no difference now that Key has broken their red back by giving them a MOU.
Once Fitzsimmons goes and they get their new co(mmy)leader,
they will be under 5% in 2011.
April 16th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
tvb said: The Greens poll strongly but not strong enough, split the vote and let National in.
So what! Doesn’t make any difference to outcome of Parliamentary votes, so no damage done if that were to happen.
April 16th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
If this is a strategic bye election for the Greens, 2011 will be a bye bye one.
April 16th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Malcolm would be brilliant. Because of her popularity through TV she would be in with a real chance. The real question is how many people actually turn up at the ballot box. That could be the major deciding factor in who wins.
April 16th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
“Or Rob Hamill – stood for the first time last election in TKC so obviously does want to actually be in parliament and does have profile. Would appeal to a broader voter base.”
Is’nt he a Jedi knight?
Bet he has a green light saber!
April 16th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
The point I was making is that Labour fears the scenario that the Green vote is strong but not strong enough and gives National a pick-up seat. Now I am all for that.
April 16th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Don’t give those commie statist shits any ideas, for fuck’s sake!
April 16th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
DPF – cunning to push the Greens – and split the vote
I agree from a purely “what’s good for the Greens” viewpoint that they need a seat, and Mt Albert would be a good one to choose. Auckland Central potentially better, but it doesn’t have a by election. Realistically, Labour are unlikely to be back next time either, so the Greens need to work out what they will do for the next two terms (this and next) without Labour. Cementing in a seat, and forming some agreements with National, are the logical things to chase.
April 16th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Will Labour allow the Green party to stand a credible candidate against them ?
April 16th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
If the Nat’s are smart they will run a “vote for the green candidate and get Bradford as your new leader”.
If that is not enough to scare anybody away from voting Green then nothing will be.
April 16th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
I doubt standing mother Teresa as a Green candidate would win Mt Albert.
April 16th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Not Robyn Malcom though
Outrageous fortune wouldn’t be the same if she gave it up to go feral in Wellington.
April 16th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
It looks as though whoever the Greens and Labour choose as their respective candidates, they will be in for a very tough scrap with the Nats
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2009/04/melissa-lee-for-mt-albert.html
April 16th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Robyn Malcolm, Melissa Lee- and Judith Tizzard? One of these is not like the other ones, indeed.
April 16th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Looks like the Nats are putting Meliisa Lee into the contest. Now she will take a lot of beating. Good choice.
April 16th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Agreed Viking2 – Melissa Lee will be an outstanding candidate – and dare I say it – even better looking than Helen’s “body double” from last year’s billboards!
April 16th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
dudes,
Green is worth 15% tops,
even considering favoured electorates,
Labour are out of power for at least ten years in NZ,
NAT want this seat, and by forming a selective association with Green
Green votes will be higher than normal,
and therefore the losing labour vote is even lower.
NAT should win this seat.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
DPF said: Normally I would say stand a co-leader… Russel Norman is too well associated with Wellington…
Russel Norman worked and lived in Auckland for several years, before moving to Wellington to join the Green Parliamentary staff, and then being elected as Green Co-Leader. He is very familiar with the Mt Albert electorate, having had an office only a couple of hundred metres outside the electorate boundary.
So thanks for the great suggestion DPF. I’ll have a chat with Russel.
If it happens it will really scare the shit out of Labour – and National, for that matter.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
I’d save Russel for Wellington Central in 2011 perhaps toad. After all that was the Green Party’s best polling electorate in terms of the party vote. Would be interesting if he did stand though.
Still have to decide who I’m going to vote for.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Ah, jarbury – you live in the Mt Albert electorate.
You should come into the Green office at Unit 8, 1 Porters Ave sometime soon and have a chat with Lucy who does the transport liaison work for the Green MPs.
SH20 will be a big issue for the Greens in the Mt Albert campaign.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
“SH20 will be a big issue for the Greens in the Mt Albert campaign”
Yeah – the electorate just loves gridlock.
Is frogblog so dull you cant discuss your future bans over there?
April 16th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
lol @ any attempt by Russell to go head to head with Melissa!
April 16th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
“SH20 will be a big issue for the Greens in the Mt Albert campaign”
Great – so we can expect more lies about transport, more scare mongering, and the only good thing is most MA voters won’t give a fuck. Single issue politics – a Green specialty.
April 17th, 2009 at 8:49 am
Thanks for the info toad. Very much awaiting what Steven Joyce is going to pull out of the hat regarding the Waterview Connection. Especially considering the original justification for the tunnel was made largely on the basis of “surface options wouldn’t really be much cheaper”.
Personally I think we should wait and see what traffic patterns are like once the Mt Roskill extension has been opened – there may be gridlock, but there may not be. We should also consider what SH1 flows through the central city will be once the Victoria Park Tunnel and Newmarket Viaduct projects have also been completed. We should then seriously probe whether the stated $2.7 billion in time-saving benefits of the project are actually real and not some made-up figure: for example the traffic model used for this project reckoned that 98% of people travelling from the North Shore to the airport would use the Waterview Connection…. wtf?
While I do see some justification in the project – that the value of the Western Ring Route is severely diminished by not completing the last piece in the puzzle, no matter how you build the project it IS INCREDIBLY EXPENSIVE. If we’re going to spend that amount of money (minimum is around $1.5 billion, or $2.5 billion if you include financing costs and upgrades to SH16, or maybe $2.8 billion for 6 lanes) then we should be damn sure about the necessity for it.
April 17th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
nandor should stand for the greens..
failing him..
..norman..
phil(whoar.co.nz)