David Cormack
patreon
Greens right to take deal, membership right to oppose it
🕑 Added 2020-11-01 00:49:15 +0000 UTCThe deal the Greens were offered by Labour was pretty shit.
It was always going to be pretty shit. Remember that Labour does not need the Greens for anything. This term.
But they will likely need the Greens after 2023. It would be surprising if a party was to win a majority in two successive MMP elections (though if they perform well this term, who knows?), so being able to work together is important.
My biggest gripe with the deal is that the Labour leadership thinks that Climate Change is something that doesn't warrant being inside Cabinet, when really it's the biggest existential threat we're facing.
That said, I think the Greens were right to take it. First off, there needs to be a Green MP as Climate Change minister. Climate Change is the major reason for the Green's existence, it's primary kaupapa, so even if they'd only been offered that they should have taken the deal.
But they got more.
Marama Davidson getting a Ministerial warrant is great, and this experience for her and for the Party is a huge victory for the Green left.
Also the chair and deputy chair roles of two select committees are genuinely important in terms of the shape of legislation reaching second and third readings, so do not underestimate those roles - particularly for a party of 10 MPs in a Parliament of 120.
I also think that having a healthy chunk of the delegates oppose it is also a good thing. I'm told that it was the Green left who were the most vocally opposed, particularly those out of Auckland, and good on them. The Greens need dissent within the ranks in order to make sure it is the best version of itself. Apparently Jan Logie delivered a very impressive speech that is being credited with potentially winning over some wavering delegates.
People more familiar with the goings on than I am say that during the Zoom call, a couple of delegates fell off the call and immediately following the vote they needed to be manually contacted to have their votes recorded - because it was seen as being that close to failing. In the end though it got through comfortably with 85% - in Green Party terms, votes like that need 75% to pass if consensus is blocked.
This is in stark difference to the last term when 98% of delegates voted to accept the role in Government.
I think that this also benefits the Green Party longer term. It gives them even more experience playing with the grown ups. And having two Green Ministers further demonstrates that the Greens in government will not destroy the country's economy - which was always middle/right New Zealand's fear.
But the people who most benefit from this deal is Labour. They have now buttressed themself from climate or homelessness criticism from the left, which are areas Labour is likely to be vulnerable in. Had the Greens not taken the deal then it would have been a massive headache for the Government fending off attacks from both left and right as they try to desperately hold centre voters.
Ardern seems to hold back her ruthlessness for dealing with those closest to her, whether or not you view that as a good thing is up to you.
------
Referendum rage
I voted the wrong way on both referenda. I am particularly passionate about drug reform and I was devastated by the result of the cannabis referendum even though it was fairly predictable. I thought the massive landslide that Labour got, and Chlöe winning Auckland Central may have put it back in play, but it was not to be.
The devastation gave way to utter fury when I heard the PM had voted yes. I have no doubt that had she made it clear earlier on then the result would have been different, but she was focused on the bigger prize of holding those centre voters.
I don't just blame her though. I think the referendum failed for a lot of different reasons.
One was the PM's refusal to publicly support it. Paula Bennett was able to peddle a lot of misinformation at the beginning of the campaign which was never really refuted. The yes team's marketing didn't seem as pointed and tight as it could have been. And I also just think that a lot of people didn't really care too much so just supported the status quo. So really, no one thing is to blame.
It's still really fucking disappointing. I don't know when drug reform will be properly looked at again, but it's so obvious that there needs to be reform. In fact in 2010 when Simon Power was Justice Minister under John Key, the Law Commission recommended that medicinal was legalised and penalties for recreational were substantially decreased. Ten years ago. And still no change.
I hope that those focused on getting change stay focused on it and don't give up. We'll get there eventually.
Comments
David Cormack
Yep. I don't think it should have ever gone to referendum for this exact reason.
Sam Douglas
The most disappointing result from the referendum is the extent it has been framed as resounding support for no change. It's not a stretch to imagine another 5% might support a more incremental reform, but that's now been made politically difficult, especially with the spin on the result
