Green Party list changes

May 27th, 2014 at 4:00 pm by David Farrar

greenlist

I thought it would be interesting to look at the Green Party list changes over time.

First the 2014 final list compared to the draft list is interesting. Mojo Mathers was rated much higher by the members than the initial ranking group. And James Shaw (sadly) rated lower. She went from 14 to 9 and Shaw from 10 to 13. Also of interest is David Kennedy shot up from 28 to 19.

Comparing 2014 to 2011, the big movers are Genter up five (deserved), Mathers up five, Clendon down three, Roche down three and Browning down five (deserved).

Looking at trends over time, I note:

  • Hague is locked in as No 3 and is the obvious next male co-leader (which could be a good thing)
  • Hughes continues to rise (deserved)
  • Delahunty and Graham have peaked and now starting to slip down

The will need to get 16% to get their top 20 MPs in. I doubt they will do that – but if Labour vote continues to decline, they could get close. At the lower end of the scale, they could dip slightly below 10% as their supporters often do not turn out to vote as much as other parties. At 9% they’d get around 11 MPs – losing Walker, Roche and Browning.

In other news, Metiria Turei again makes a case for both her and Russell to be Deputy PMs:

Dunedin-based Ms Turei, who retained top spot, said there was ”no reason” two MPs could not share the deputy’s role.

This would enable Dr Russel Norman and Ms Turei’s strengths, the environment and inequality/poverty respectively, to achieve equal billing in the next government, she said.

I suspect Winston may have some views on that!

Tags: ,

52 Responses to “Green Party list changes”

  1. seanmaitland (500 comments) says:

    Russell Norman has no known skills. His thesis was done on the Alliance party and Jim Anderton, and he has no real-world job skills to draw from. At least Michael Cullen was a teacher.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Manolo (13,780 comments) says:

    Hughes continues to rise (deserved)

    An outlandish statement by DPF that deserves to be challenged.
    What has this useless Luddite done ever in his life? He opposes every initiative and is dead-keen against progress!

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Rich Prick (1,705 comments) says:

    Co-deputy-PM’s? What, neither up to it on their own? That would leave Winston as Sub-co-deputy-PM and Hone would be Sub-sub-co-deputy-PM. Yeah, I’m pretty sure that’s going to work.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,903 comments) says:

    When I saw the headline I thought you were going to announce John Campbell had been given No 5 spot. He’ll be looking for a job before long.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. davidp (3,581 comments) says:

    Are none of the Green MPs retiring? Not even Kennedy Graham, despite being well in to his 80s? Not much renewal going on there.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Boris Piscina (53 comments) says:

    In fairness to Metiria, anyone mental enough to believe the Greens should be let anywhere near the levers of power could be forgiven for also believing that something as stupid as having two co-deputy-prime ministers was a good idea.

    But then she did start out in the McGillicuddy Serious Party.

    If the election delivers us Green ministers then I for one will be demanding Ben Uffindel be made President for Life.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. srylands (410 comments) says:

    “”Hughes continues to rise (deserved)”

    An outlandish statement by DPF that deserves to be challenged.””

    His rise is deserved if your criteria are his ability to promote the Green Party by obtaining coverage in the MSM, and connecting with the young and confused.

    So from that perspective it is not an outlandish statement.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. srylands (410 comments) says:

    “If the election delivers us Green ministers then I for one will be demanding Ben Uffindel be made President for Life.”

    I will be moving to Melbourne.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Don the Kiwi (1,757 comments) says:

    What a bunch of sacks.

    Communist distorters – have learnt their deceptions well from their idols Stalin and Mao.

    It’ll be a very sad day if they ever get to gain any control in this country – it’ll end up like the other socialist shitholes Cuba, Argentina and half of Europe.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Manolo (13,780 comments) says:

    If the election delivers us Green ministers then…

    Brisbane would look even more attractive. :D

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. georgedarroch (317 comments) says:

    Are none of the Green MPs retiring? Not even Kennedy Graham, despite being well in to his 80s? Not much renewal going on there.

    Graham is in his 60s, IIRC. Not the oldest one in the house by any means!

    They picked up half their current MPs at the last election, and at the last election the entirety of their 1999 intake had gone. Turei is the longest in caucus, followed by Norman. Coates could have been ranked higher, but then they would have had to demote one of the first-termers, and there was no reason to do that.

    With about 7-8% core support now, they could get anywhere between 9-16% this election. More than ACT, certainly, but probably not enough to prop up Labour without Peters – a man whose intentions are muddy.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Tarquin North (298 comments) says:

    I wonder if Julie Anne Genter is a deeply planted American agent? She changed nationality just before the last election( you can’t be American and anything else) and she was in the country at the same time as the KDC raids. According to my Campbell conspiracy guide this proves beyond doubt she is the real dot joined deep throat.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Longknives (4,753 comments) says:

    Ye Gods what a terrifying line-up! Delahunty, Hughes, Mojo Madness…All bonkers!!
    Is there a sane person in that entire list???

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Cunningham (844 comments) says:

    “Dunedin-based Ms Turei, who retained top spot, said there was ”no reason” two MPs could not share the deputy’s role.” excellent they once again play into National’s hand. If Labour had a pair, they would come out and say it’s not going to happen.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. rouppe (971 comments) says:

    Hey, ummm Turei was number 1 last election, shouldn’t it be Russell’s turn to be number 1 on the list? And the (almost) boy-girl-boy-girl look of the list also swap…?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Sir Cullen's Sidekick (890 comments) says:

    If Norman and Tuatara ever become Deputy PMs of this country that is a clear sign that GOD has decided not to defend NZ any more………

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. alwyn (425 comments) says:

    @Tarquin North at 4.41pm

    A citizen of the USA CAN hold dual citizenship with another country, such as New Zealand.
    If you voluntarily take citizenship of another country you do not automatically have you US citizenship cancelled unless the US Government can show that you took the alternative citizenship in order to renounce your US citizenship.
    This link does go on a bit but it will explain the whole thing from the US Government viewpoint.

    http://newzealand.usembassy.gov/dual_nationality.html

    Genter may therefore still hold her US citizenship.

    I am personally of the view that New Zealand MPs should be exclusively citizens of NZ. They should be required to forfeit ANY other citizenship, as Australia requires.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. jaba (2,142 comments) says:

    Turei .. deputy prime minister of new zealand .. fk that

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Fentex (978 comments) says:

    ”no reason” two MPs could not share the deputy’s role.

    That’s a silly idea. The only reason the position exists is for a chain of authority/command to be known should the PM as our chief executive be unavailable.

    For that very reason, the need to name a deputy PM, there can be no doubt about who fulfills the position – and two people cannot fit in that space.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. geoff3012 (75 comments) says:

    Hughes continues to rise (deserved)

    DPF….did you fall off Everest and land on your head????

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    stoked to see Mojo risen move up the ranks.

    a reward for her tireless efforts over the last 3 years. sit back and just think what she has accomplished. wow. impressive.

    who cares if 2-3 people have to go to work for an entire year to pay for her special needs. she more than makes up for it.

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. wiseowl (895 comments) says:

    Thanks for that Alwyn.

    With all the immigration taking place and people like com getting into politics I think it is time to review residency and citizenship rules in New Zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Longknives (4,753 comments) says:

    Dime- If the Gweens could find a blind Transgender thing in a wheelchair Russel or Meteria would have to move aside as leaders! Their dream candidate….

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. davidp (3,581 comments) says:

    georgedarroch>Graham is in his 60s, IIRC. Not the oldest one in the house by any means!

    It turns out you’re right. Every so often I check out Question Time and there is plenty of energetic rowdy debate and political point scoring. Then, right in the middle of it, Graham will stand up and ask some completely random question about drone strikes or climate change or something happening elsewhere in the world that no one really cares about. The Minister answering usually treats him like a bewildered-but-kindly old man. Sometimes I think they’d like to ask him if he’d like to sit down and have a nice cup of tea while they ring his grandchildren to come and pick him up.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. big bruv (13,904 comments) says:

    It really does not matter who is at number one and number two. Yes of course keeping the ever expanding female co leader and castle owner at number one is a sop, they had to do it to keep her spirits up.

    If you really want to know who the leader of the stinking Greens is then that is simple, just ask the public.

    Every single person you polled who had heard of the Greens will tell you that Wussel Norman is the leader, most will never have heard of the female co-leader and when pushed might come up with “is she the fat one?” as an answer.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. hj (7,023 comments) says:

    The Greenz dont believe immigration is the cause of house price increases (tonights new TV1). Not the only factor for sure but the Greens are population denialists (despite an insincere dabble in the issue)*. The seachange in Europe is due to cognitive dissonance: real working people struggle in a world these trewpz cannot or refuse to see.

    * Keith Locke: “it is anathema to myself or the Green Party to be interested in how many cildren a woman chooses to have” …… Capitalism is responsible for everything.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Reid (16,471 comments) says:

    Hughes continues to rise (deserved)

    Gaweth has always reminded me of this guy.

    His rise is deserved if your criteria are his ability to promote the Green Party by obtaining coverage in the MSM, and connecting with the young and confused.

    So from that perspective it is not an outlandish statement.

    No. Sigh. Why the heck does the media give the sanctimonious naive arrogant little twerp any airtime whatsoever? I mean one is almost forced to conclude they’re entirely comprised of nothing but airhead bimbos who understand nothing about anything and hallucinate the rest of us are as dumb as they are. And isn’t that sad, that one even has to suggest that, of them.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. David Garrett (7,289 comments) says:

    I too find it bewildering that DPF could see Hughes’ rise as “deserving”…What I see is a little twerp with no life experience who was willing to tell a bare faced lie in his maiden speech, knowing that by convention no-one could object…

    The lie? That we honkeys “…stole sovereignty at the point of a gun in 1840″…He apparently has a degree in history so knows perfectly well that: 1) in 1840 there were NO British soldiers here; and 2) there were about 3000 honkeys and about 100,000 Maori; and 3) the Maori were well tooled up as a result of the musket wars of 20 years earlier…So the little bastard was quite happy to have a complete lie recorded in Hansard, where generations to come may read it and believe it was true.

    But it’s not just that…I quickly discovered from talking to him that he knows jack shit about the oil exploration industry, and in particular, fracking as practised in New Zealand….that hasn’t stopped him from lying repeatedly about that too…The man should be expelled from parliament for lying (If that were possible), not promoted up the list…

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    From Teara.govt.nz

    “The first troops to land in New Zealand were a detachment of the 80th Regiment which arrived from Sydney in April 1840, and 30 years later the last of the Imperial troops to depart were the main body of the 18th (Royal Irish Regiment), in February 1870″

    The 80th Regiment was a British regiment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. RF (1,399 comments) says:

    I need a drink after reading DPFs blog. What are you drinking. LMK so I can avoid it. The greens are toxic and ones you say are on the up and up are nothing but crap falling in a long drop. Mojo, Hughes, the castle women that looks like a fat frog etc are so bloody useless they should not share the air we breath.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. David Garrett (7,289 comments) says:

    Judith: I’ll bite…how many were in the “detachment”? Enough for an Honour Guard for Hobson I suspect….but do tell us if you think it is true that the Brits “stole sovereignty at the point of a gun in 1840″?

    If you think it is, how did they manage it against such a superior force of armed Maori?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. David Garrett (7,289 comments) says:

    In fact now I think of it, there ARE “redcoats” in paintings of the scene at Waitangi when the Treaty was signed….about five of them.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. big bruv (13,904 comments) says:

    David Garrett

    Is your email address still the same?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. David Garrett (7,289 comments) says:

    BB: Yes…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. big bruv (13,904 comments) says:

    DG

    Ok, I sent you something that might be of interest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ David Garrett (5,434 comments) says:
    May 27th, 2014 at 7:17 pm

    I have no idea how many were in the regiment, but when I read your post I remembered learning something about there being a British regiment here – and how the numbers were greatly increased between the period of the first signatures and the final signatures being collected.

    Do I believe the British ‘stole’ sovereignty? I think that is a question we could debate forever, and there would be no definitive answer. It is one that can go either way depending on how you look at it. The British came from a civilised, industrial society that was used to negotiation and even ‘contracts’. Maori did not. Their lifestyle and society was by comparison, immature. Would it be considered appropriate today, to sign a legal contract under the same conditions?

    Whilst technically I do not believe most signatures were submitted under duress, I do believe that Maori were not fully aware of what the consequences of that treaty would be. They signed it willingly – that is obvious, for as you say the numbers were very different, but did they all fully understand, or were even capable of full understanding? I doubt it.

    Whether one defines that has ‘theft’ is a subjective argument for which there will never be any winners.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. davidp (3,581 comments) says:

    Judith>The first troops to land in New Zealand were a detachment of the 80th Regiment which arrived from Sydney in April 1840

    So, well after the Treaty was signed. But just in time to clean up the lawless whalers, arms dealers, and other low life who were living in the far north at the time. And to stop Maori killing each other.

    The Maori leaders who signed the Treaty were quite canny. For hundreds of years, Maori had lived brutal and short lives filled with inter-tribal violence. They managed to get the Crown to sort out the problem. They also leapfrogged from a stone age (pre-bronze, pre-iron, pre-wheel, hunter-gatherer) state of development to the industrial age in just a generation. It might have been the deal of the millennium, and all it cost them was some undeveloped under-populated land. It was a visionary strategic move and the signers should be congratulated for making it. Because experience (Afghanistan, Somalia, etc) shows that it is very easy for some societies to mire themselves in the violent under-achievement they know, rather than to take action to remedy the situation.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Don the Kiwi (1,757 comments) says:

    Judith.

    Do not think the Maori were “ignorant savages”. They were very shrewd, and very accustomed to negotiation. They wre very aware of what they were signing – they were so concerned (1) that the other nations with their eyes on NZ – French, American, Russian – they considered the British by far the best bet. They knew of British justice, and (2) many chiefs were concerned for the future of their people – not only, by this time, had measles taken many Maori lives, the young warriors were so intent on fighting neighbouring tribes, killing and enslaving and eating their enemies- the older ans wiser chiefs wanted British law to stop this from happening. They were very willing to gain British justice, and knew exactly what they were doing.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. David Garrett (7,289 comments) says:

    davidp: Excellent point re timing…I must be getting old…never spotted the month, just “1840”

    Judith: We can debate endlessly, as you say :1) who benefited most from the treaty; and 2) who pressed for it most; and 3) whether the various Maori who signed it understood it….all of those are valid matters for debate, and they are all unlikely to ever be settled one way or another…

    But the claim Hughes made that we “stole sovereignty at the point of a gun” is quite different…that is an assertion of fact which required – at the very least – enough British soldiers here in February 1840 to force a much larger number of tooled up Maori to sign a document they didn’t want to sign…That argument simply doesn’t hold water…Why cant you just admit that clear and unequivocal reality?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ davidp (3,398 comments) says:
    May 27th, 2014 at 7:54 pm

    The first signatures were in February 1840. It was many months before the final signatures were collected.
    But I don’t happen to think the British Regiment was there to be threatening. It was there because that is the ‘British’ way, regarding ceremony – much of which is still obvious in the way Britain officially ‘celebrates’ today.

    I simply pointed out to Mr Garrett that there was a regiment here – because obviously he wasn’t aware of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. hj (7,023 comments) says:

    The Greens are all for Maori a d ta gagawhenua should be consulted on imigration policy (but only Mutu, Walker , Davidson will belistend too). Like a lot of left wing elite they uuuse Maori to divide us.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Johnboy (16,597 comments) says:

    Saying fuck seems to have fucked Jan Logie’s rise in the ranks! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Johnboy (16,597 comments) says:

    I’m surprised that Julie isn’t higher up the list. She’s got a much healthier body than everyone ahead of her! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ David Garrett (5,436 comments) says:
    May 27th, 2014 at 8:24 pm

    Factually, NO, we didn’t steal sovereignty at the point of a gun – but as I said, subjectively, I can understand the basis for that argument. I don’t think Hughes meant it literally, but rather demonstratively. That may be his opinion, it is one I frequently hear. It is one that is supported by the subsequent stealing of land, which tends to support Maori claims.

    This is an argument I really don’t like taking part in, I can see both sides – however, as my Gt Grandfather, feathered the family’s nest quite nicely by incorporating a bit of Maori land theft of his own, I would be somewhat hypocritical to plead for either side, especially as I would never consider repaying anything gained from that transaction (nor would the other 110 odd descendants of the GTGF). It is an argument that will never be solved. Our great grandchildren will still be having the same conversations (sigh).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Johnboy (16,597 comments) says:

    Best that Hughes should chain himself back onto a fence at a Maccas somewhere so when the obesity police ban the Tangata Whenua from feeding on burgers and chips they can revert back to their cultural norms and scoff the scrawny little bastard.

    He’d be low in cholesterol I suspect! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Reid (16,471 comments) says:

    I think the real problem is that once the treaty was signed, it was broken, wholesale, for around one hundred years. How would feel, if say, the Chinese, had come over here in 1840, and done precisely what we did to Maori, to us?

    Note: the point is not to compare us to what the Chinese may or may have done.

    Merely to say that the complaints have a basis.

    The fact Maori trade off the issue in these modern times, does not mean that there isn’t an issue. That they do that and what we do about that, is a separate question

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. rangitoto (247 comments) says:

    Just as well Athens had Themistokles running the show instead of this bunch of muppets, when facing off the attempted invasion from the East. We would be wearing funny shoes and writing cuneiform.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. hj (7,023 comments) says:

    In one of her posts Catherine Delahunty talks about using the treaty (tino rangitiratanga) to have a renegotiation (under their guidance ofcourse) ; a tool to undermine the status quo.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. hj (7,023 comments) says:

    David Hay claimed the Greens are not interested in going mainstream juzt being a spanner on the left wing. Hence all they need for economic policy is to infect the public with a meme such as “leader in green technology”, “world leader in tidal power”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. itstricky (1,832 comments) says:

    But the claim Hughes made that we “stole sovereignty at the point of a gun” is quite different…that is an assertion of fact which required – at the very least – enough British soldiers here in February 1840 to force a much larger number of tooled up Maori to sign a document they didn’t want to sign…That argument simply doesn’t hold water…Why cant you just admit that clear and unequivocal reality?

    Judith didn’t address that. She addressed point (1) on your list aka “there were NO British soldiers here”. Clearly there were. Why can’t you just admit, with simple words, rather than dancing, that you got it wrong?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. David Garrett (7,289 comments) says:

    Its an idiot: If Judith’s source is correct (I don’t know what this Te Ara thing is) then yes, there were some British soldiers here in 1840….but ” a detachment” from a regiment is not the same thing at all as a regiment…What IS certain is the Maori hugely outnumbered the honkeys, and they were well tooled up because of the musket wars 20 years earlier. Have you heard of them?

    Now if Gareth the Weasel had said “The Government wrongly confiscated Maori land during and after the land wars” I would have no argument at all…The Sim Commission of 1927 concluded unequivocally that that was the case, and recommended “fulsome compensation forthwith”…To the shame of the government of the day that didn’t happen for twenty years…but that’s a whole other story…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. itstricky (1,832 comments) says:

    Guy who likes to manipulate my handle; I shan’t speculate why…

    You can’t bring yourself to say “sorry, I was wrong”, can you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote