Anthony Hubbard has a nice exclusive in the SST:
Bradford’s resignation last month was not just because she was disappointed at her defeat by Metiria Turei for the job of woman co-leader, as Bradford claimed.
It also reflected her disillusionment with what she saw as greater readiness by co-leaders Turei and Russel Norman to deal with National. Bradford, said a party source, “wanted to stay staunch”, and wanted the Green Party to remain left-wing.
I don’t think Sue had much to worry about there. Of course her definition of left-wing may be very different to most.
When Sue resigned, I said it indicated that things were not too harmonious in the Greens, and certain supporters howled at me for daring to suggest this.
Bradford’s resignation follows a serious disagreement with the party over strategy and ideology. During the campaign for co-leadership, according to party sources, Bradford was accused of attempting to blackmail the Greens with her threat of resignation.
Blackmail is a strong word. Was that another MP who used it?
It is understood she told the caucus in either late 2007 or early 2008 that she would quit the party if it went further down the track as a swing party, ready to go with either of the two big parties. Her resignation was simply following through on that threat, a source said.
But they never mentioned this at the press conference.
The list MP was originally a Marxist radical and spent many years in militant activity for the unemployed. Although she abandoned Marxism, she never quit being a radical.
I thought she was more Maoist than Marxist. One has to keep the different communist sects distinct. Locke and Norman are also former Marxists.
She and a minority in the party fought the trend to widen the appeal of the Greens to include a broad cross-section of voters, including National supporters.
If the Greens only take votes off Labour, it doesn’t help the left a lot.
Anyway maybe Sue will elaborate in her valedictory speech to Parliament.