[ad_1]
Commentary
Shane Te Pou, who had never been a fan of the Greens, now believes the party could bring a much-needed jolt of radicalism to what threatens to be another term of cautious incrementalism.
Ever since they have existed as a political party, the Greens have annoyed me. Before the MMP, they were saboteurs who divided the vote of the left, aiding and inciting conservatives in the process. Since 1999, they have reveled in minor party status, allowing Labor to do the heavy lifting without ever missing an opportunity to display its superior virtue.
I’m a bungalow dweller from the inner suburbs these days, but my politics was forged in working-class communities and the union movement. From that perspective, the Greens can seem unbearably self-righteous, and so out of touch that whenever they talked about saving the planet, I often wondered what planet they were talking about, or actually what planet they were talking about.
Given this deeply ingrained history, my knee-jerk reaction was to applaud recent polls that showed Greens at risk of not meeting the 5 percent threshold. Have a good trip, I thought. He was excited about the prospect of a Labor-only government.
I scoffed at talking about an Epsom-style deal to save the Greens by joining Chole Swarbrick in Auckland Central. I even experienced a bit of schadenfreude from the Taranaki Green School debacle.
If we are going to make significant progress on climate change, we cannot ask people to choose between the environment and the economy.
But, in a way, I changed my mind about the Green Party during the course of the campaign. I may not vote for them, but now I think they should be part of the next government.
Given the timidity of Labor’s “slowly, slowly” political agenda, it is increasingly clear that the next government could benefit from the merger with the Greens.
They could bring a much-needed jolt of radicalism to what threatens to be another term of cautious incrementalism.
These unprecedented times demand bravery from our leaders, and I don’t see as much evidence of that in the Labor Party in this campaign as I would like.
Take your tax plan, which meekly proposes an income tax increase so small that it would barely generate enough revenue to cover the cost of providing pay parity for early education, let alone meet the huge demand for improved social services and investment in infrastructure. .
Frankly, the estate tax proposed by the Greens is a much better idea, while not perfect, it is both serious and sensible.
In fact, I was a bit disappointed when James Shaw said politics will not be a “bottom line” in post-election talks. Should be.
While most upper-middle-class Green Party activists have the luxury of rejecting the very concept of economic growth, poor communities do not.
Speaking of Shaw, I ended up being impressed by his handling of the Green School issue.
He offered one of the most abundant mea guilts I have seen from a New Zealand politician, and it is gratifying that polls seem to suggest that he has reversed the party’s downfall. I hope politicians from all walks of life take note: when you do things, try to get rid of the weeds and confront yourself honestly. The voters will forgive you. They prefer it to seeing you defend the indefensible.
To be fair, Shaw has been a consistently strong performer during the Coalition Government’s tenure. The fact that he has emerged as one of the most respected ministers within the business community is testament to his competence, pragmatism and attractiveness – three attributes not often associated with Greens.
In fact, and ironically, it is in their precious territories of climate change and transportation that I find myself most at odds with the Greens.
It’s not that I deny or discuss the climate crisis, my kids wouldn’t let me get away with it. My problem is with the fatalistic framing they adopt on the subject.
His focus on demonizing private vehicles and blocking road infrastructure are examples of this. If we are to make significant progress on climate change, we cannot ask people to choose between the environment and the economy. While most upper-middle-class Green Party activists have the luxury of rejecting the very concept of economic growth, poor communities do not. They still need jobs. They still need to go to work and get the kids to do sports on the weekends.
Telling them that they are destroying planet Earth by driving a car simply repels these voters. In fact, it makes them hostile to climate action. In this way, the approach of the green ideologues can backfire.
But there is much to be liked in other parts of the green manifesto. His health, education and justice policies are more ambitious than those of Labor at a time when ambition is required.
If they can use their leverage over the next period to push for a bolder policy, they can ensure that the next period will have more consequences than the last.
Without NZ First acting as a counterweight, your influence will naturally be greater. And if the Greens use their influence to force their senior partner through much-needed reforms that they might otherwise resist as a precaution, the next administration could do more to promote Labor values than an independent Labor government would.
[ad_2]
