[ad_1]
Campaign diary: In the words of Green’s co-leader James Shaw, it was a “dirty night” in Wellington for the party’s campaign rally in the city.
A grimy gale blowing through the capital threw a gloomy cloak over the proceedings: the soft filigree of raindrops cascading from the sky gave an unfortunately snotty pale to the bright green signage inside the pub where the party was. holding a properly socially distanced rally.
But the Greens are a party of “regret”; Despite decades of trying, they were the last party in our MMP Parliament to be part of a government, despite the vagaries of proportional politics, they have managed to hold their vote better than the vehicles of political celebrities that litter political history. modern; and despite the frankly deluded conditions, the party faithful always went to attend talks with their parliamentarians.
This choice, of course, there is another regret on the table; Despite the curse of the minority party, Shaw and co-leader Marama Davidson must now try to get their party in a position where it returns to Parliament after the election.
That means getting 5 percent of the vote, a feat no minor party accomplished after a term in office.
READ MORE:
* Election 2020: Marama Davidson says the Green Party is “ very focused ” on surviving the elections
* Election 2020: Green Party recovers the pieces after a damaging week caused by the ‘mess’ of the Green School
* Dead rat spat again: Green Party vote to repeal waka jump law with National, enraging Winston Peters
Davidson did not shy away from the Greens’ situation.
“Right now we are sitting near the 5 percent threshold to go back to Parliament.
“I’m not comfortable with that,” Davidson said.
ROBERT KITCHEN / Things
Green co-leaders James Shaw and Marama Davidson hold an apology press conference in Parliament for Shaw’s decision to fund a “green” school.
She recited the list of MPs who would return to Parliament if the Greens won 5 percent of the vote.
The list deliberately ended before Davidson could go through the current caucus, an acknowledgment that at 5 percent, Golriz Ghahraman would likely be out of Parliament.
Davidson knows how to work the green base. A single tweet over the weekend, in which he used a lewd cultural reference to poke fun at the National Party’s achievements on housing, went a long way to assuaging party loyalists’ concerns about the green school saga. .
The crowd for this rally was about as full as is legally allowed under current restrictions. The mood wasn’t exactly devastating, but as we’re starting to see this campaign, that’s not the fault of either party; it’s just hard enough to cheer on a crowd when crowds are illegal. Supporters laughed at most of the correct parts, despite the fire and brimstone warnings about electoral and ecological ruin.
The Wellington crowd was a good reminder of the national infrastructure that sets the Greens apart from other minor parties. The evening’s MC Teanau Tuiono ran a decent campaign for mayor in Palmerston North finishing a second (distant), Green Wellington regional councilor Thomas Nash was in the audience, as were candidates and volunteers from the party branches.
The party straddles the divide between major and minor parties in the sense that it has the political and volunteer infrastructure of a small major party, but the volatility of the polls of a large minority party.
Rallies like the one in Wellington, followed by another in Christchurch on Friday, are trying to activate those networks. The party’s Wellington Central electorate organizer gave attendees a pulse and urged worshipers to volunteer.
This election is important to the Greens and to the political left in New Zealand. If the party remains in Parliament, it can retain its three decades of history and claim to be part of the New Zealand political landscape.
If not, it joins the rubble of minor parties littering the history of the MMP era, freeing a left-wing voting swath to Labor, a new party, or the growing number of people choosing not to vote at all.
MARK TAYLOR / Waikato Times
Labor seem comfortable with the idea of forming a majority government.
Shaw, himself one of the oldest members of the party, leaned toward history.
“I want to talk about the past, not the more recent past, I’m still trying to get over that,” Shaw said, pointing to the Green School controversy.
“For the first time in history we have a track record where we are running in terms of re-election,” he said, before listing an achievement from each of his caucus members.
Some of these achievements received applause, many did not. Michael Cullen used to complain that voters would quickly reserve political victories before turning to their politicians for more, and there is an aspect of this in the tension between the green caucus and party members.
The caucus knows change is difficult, but party members have an insatiable appetite for big changes and little appetite for excuses now that the Greens are in office.
The things that excited members the most were things accomplished outside of the Greens’ portfolios. Jan Logie’s work on sexual violence, accomplished from the relatively humble position of parliamentary undersecretary, ignited the crowd as much as anything accomplished by a full minister.
Davidson and Shaw’s message focused on the party itself and their victories in Government with Labor and National were mentioned only briefly. The party wanted to talk about what it is, rather than what it opposes itself, which is itself a small change for the Greens.
It is not yet clear how, or if, the party wants to flip the switch that turns on its powerful history of protests and opposition politics. The Greens know they have to crush the Tories (to use slang), but the complications of coalition politics and the dominance of the Covid-enabled Labor Party for the mass market have left the party confused as to which Tories to crush.
Labor’s firing and the Greens’ own record in government could turn into collateral damage, the problem of every minor partner in New Zealand’s history.
Furthermore, it is difficult to know where Labor stands on the spectrum of left-wing politics. Yesterday’s fiscal policy was on the far right of what might be called the center-left, but today’s promise to make a full transition to renewable electricity generation by 2030 was a deep foray into green territory.
But what is the point of attacking National, where there are no possible green votes and that is not a credible threat to the formation of a left government?
Shaw’s recent dispute with Labor over the fiscal policy that would take the next government shows his tentative adoption of a more conflictual style of politicking with his more important left partner. The last election, Shaw’s Budgetary Responsibility Rules deal with Grant Robertson tied the Greens into Labor’s broader fiscal policy. It was an attempt by the Greens to quell public fears about what a left-wing government would look like.
That policy was about the Greens helping Labor remove the specter of the far left making the decisions on economic policy.
This time, the roles are reversed. With the Greens vote threatened, Shaw is not afraid to pull the tail dog card if it means bringing the Greens to Parliament. The problem with the Greens is that Labor is getting very comfortable with the idea of a majority government and they don’t like the idea of bleeding votes from anyone, not even a friend.
