Source
r/newzealand•
ios101

To Greens on r/newzealand - why do you think that the new leader will actually change anything?

I am not being a dick or anything, I am honestly curious if you think that he will manage to accomplish anything in terms of turning around Greens vote. I've looked at Shaw's interviews and read some of the coverage in the media and the message that he seems to send out is that the only thing he will actually do is to repackage the policies to make them more appealing. Not change the policies to move Greens away from the fringe, just put a less radical spin on them. It might attract some voters, but I question whether it will have a large impact.

Posted Jun 3, 2015, 10:02 PM UTC

544
winter_limelight•

Perhaps - but what I've found with my largely National voting farmer-based extended family is that Green party messages can resonate with them. What is often a concern is the fear that it will cost them personally and more of a visceral fear that their voice will be a minority trampled by the 'urban hippies' (i.e. the Greens).

There are two good examples I've talked about with family.

  1. Fencing of waterways. This has come across as a big burden being placed on farmers - a big government intervention in their lives. My suggestion (don't think this is policy) is that government contributes in a similar fashion to housing insulation: shared cost and assistance with implementation. It seemed a lot less frightening that way.

  2. Balanced budgets. Farmers (well at least some I know) are notorious for leveraging against their assets, which is understandable since most had to borrow heavily to get the farm, even if it was in the family, but they also have a clear map to economic balance - the productivity of the land. The National government seems happy to borrow, but doesn't have that clear map, and finds its operational costs (rather than the capital ones for the farmer) the dominant problem. Tinkering with tax a few percent in the middle doesn't bother them to reach balanced budgets.

10
DeltaOneOne•

I wouldn't mind putting some tax dollars towards riparian fencing and planting. It's unfair to suddenly dump the entire cost on the farmers but it needs to be done soonish.

9
Kiwibaconator•

I can't see how water way fencing costs should be borne by anyone but the farmers!

5
logantauranga•

Because runoff is a 'tragedy of the commons' situation.
There's currently a government programme that provides funds for planting specific kinds of trees and plants near waterways to significantly reduce runoff. It's also good from a conservation point of view.

8
Kiwibaconator•

Absolutely. But planting near waterways and fencing of waterways are seperate issues.

Fencing is to prevent stock stirring up silt/mud and peeing/pooing in the river. This is a direct farmer responsibility.

7
Ommmm420•

Then you disagree with subsidising home insulation?

1
ihuntbounties•

There is plenty of places around the country where waterways are not fenced off because the animals drink from the waterway, and on top of that the waterway isn't even particularly polluted either because the paddock is stocked with sheep, or just not farmed particularly intensively.

Now tell me why a farmer would pay to fence that off? There is also the problem of forcing farmers to fence off the trees by water ways that their stock use for shelter, leading to heat stroke in summer and sick stock in winter.

There definitely is a bunch of places farmers should fence off, but waterways are not equal uniform things, and farm situations aren't all the same either.

4
Kiwibaconator•

Farmers should have to pay because it is their stock causing the problem. Unfenced water-ways with no stock is no problem.

It is simply lazy farming to let animals graze and pee/poo in waterways instead of fencing them off and supplying water/shade behind that fence.

2
[deleted]•

[deleted]

4
Kiwibaconator•

I'm fine with councils planting buffer zones. But the fences need to be done by the farmers.

The buffer zones and fences are seperate issues. Buffer zones without fences and without stock work just the same.

2
[deleted]•

[deleted]

3
ios101OP•

What have your farmer thought about carbon tax, capital gains tax, increasing of benefits, new top tax rate, providing new borns with care packages courtesy of tax payer, minimal wage, increasing redundancy packages, increaing union powers, bankrolling Christchurch infrastructure further?

Environmentalism is by far not the only thing that Greens do. I would go as far as to say that it is the minor part of their overall policy package.

3
maybemeatRepost Police•

I think he is playing it safe at the moment. It is a dangerous game to start completely changing the direction of a party as soon as you take over co-leadership - you risk alienating existing supporters and members and you essentially say 'the way we did it in the past was wrong'.

I think you'll see a gradual shift away from the sillier stuff the greens were previously known for rather than a big 'this is the new greens'.

Also keep in mind that he isn't a dictator. He doesn't have complete control over the direction - he is only co leader.

6
sweatymetty•

He doesn't have complete control over the direction - he is only co leader.

The Greens also use participative democracy to determine policy direction, so the hardline ^leftwing^radical Green members will ensure that policy doesn't drift (or even jump) to the right at all.

Rather, we'll probably see less and less of the 'hippy' policies or approaches mentioned, and more and more sensible and pragmatic arguments to do with the economy, business models, price signals.

6
IllusiveSelf•

What radical left wingers? The actual lefties left for mana or retirement years ago. All the crazies left are conspiracy minded environmentalist sorts.

6
voy1d•

Some of who even make it into parliament!

1
ios101OP•

Dude have you heard Meteria speak ever? I heard her live once in University of Canterbury. She might as well have been in the 1920's calling for the workers of the world to unite.

OK - Jokes aside, but she is pretty damn radical left. Taxation, redistribution, central planning, the lot. In fact I would even go as far as to say that environment is not nearly at the top of her personal political agenda.

-2†
IllusiveSelf•

Post-Piketty I would have thought that would have been standard democratic policy, lest the country fall into oligarchy or factionalism. Every government in this country taxes, redistributes and central plans while not caring that much about the environment. The Greens are already moderate!

5
FatesForger•

Define large. 5% gain in the party vote puts them at 15% - that's a 50% bump which is huge. Of course it's still only 15% of the party vote.

James Shaw has the capacity to ease the fears of people who consider voting Green but don't. This is the Greens biggest obstacle right now. He's someone most people can get behind and crucially will listen to. I would expect in polling 3 months from now the Greens will have lifted towards 15%. Shaw's challenge will be extending that towards 20% and keeping the party in line and on message. This is a big challenge for an activist party.

5
pondandbucket•

This blog post by Danyl Mclauchlan seems relevant to this; particularly his "Mclauchlan’s Hierarchy of Political Needs", which is "Maslow's hierarchy of needs" refashioned to talk about voters.

You'll notice that policy is considered the least important. Presenting yourself as a legitimate option to govern is much more important. It doesn't really matter if they change the policy -- putting some different wrapping paper on it will probably be much more effective in changing their vote. John Key and National are masterful at it.

Though it remains to be seen what James Shaw can do that Russell Norman couldn't.

4
ios101OP•

I said elsewhere that what JK is selling is by far an easier sell than what the Greens are pushing. That has play some part it in. Regarding presentation does it not mean that the replacements should not really end at leader then, but to look a very different line up altogether?

1
Gyn_Nag•

he will actually do is to repackage the policies to make them more appealing.

Why on earth do you think John Key has been so successful?

That aside, I'm a moderate and a centre-leftist, so I prefer leaders that reflect that. I think it's unlikely James Shaw can understand economic theory well without that having some effect on the policies he puts in place. It could be a disaster, I don't know.

I have been getting a lot of spam emails from the Greens forum about people who have just joined the party.

3
ios101OP•

JK has been successful due to a range of factors. Nats did not pursue and in fact abandoned a lot of the very pro-market policies. What helps him a lot is that he is not trying to sell fringe stuff to the voters. This has not been the case with the Greens.

2
Gyn_Nag•

Nats did not pursue and in fact abandoned a lot of the very pro-market policies.

And the sky hasn't fallen, the economy's in pretty good shape, gay marriage was legalised under a right-wing government, we're one of the happiest countries on Earth, and they've won three elections. The electoral system is doing its job.

What helps him a lot is that he is not trying to sell fringe stuff to the voters.

The appeal of James Shaw is that he is further from the fringe without being right-wing, nor stuck in Labour's unimaginative rut.

3
ios101OP•

You asked why JK is successful. I pointed out that it is because of personal appeal as well as pretty damn un-fringe politics, including dumping unpopular Nats policies. Are you saying that Shaw will do the same?

1
Gyn_Nag•

That would be the hope. Although I'm continually disappointed by the economic comprehension of the Left, I don't agree with the Right's elevation of the benefit of a person's economic contribution to the level of practically being a property right. When people are in poverty... and the absurd argument that the state should take no moral stance on that.

1
sweatymetty•

He comes across as a level-headed, successful business-type politician, which resonates with the centre voters, who seem to think this is the only authentic avenue to politics, so that helps. He's been practical, not at all ideological, and really quite non-political so far, which bodes well for a career in opposition.

But I think the biggest change that has happened is the almost instant change in the way the media report about the Greens. Especially with this report about Labour's electoral campaign in the media at the moment. It's pretty clear that the Greens are being presented as a credible and authentic alternative to National, and the way things are going, they are actually lending credibility to the struggling Labour party.

3
Steve_Evo•

I think it's going to be more of a "hey, he's a sensible looking business type and he's a co-leader of the Greens so maybe they aren't a bunch of nutters after all?"

3
ios101OP•

That impression will last exactly until the other co-leader opens her mouth.

-8
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
ycnz•

I know almost nothing about him. I'm assuming he's annoyed less of the internal party members than Kevin Hague, since that's the only reason I can think of for voting for someone who's been in parliament for about 30 seconds.

1