Is This Stupid? Greens Political Ouster

[Zardnaar]

NZ politics.

Green Party's James Shaw to face leadership challenge

A shellshocked James Shaw has been ejected from the Greens' leadership by a minority of party delegates and has yet to decide whether he will fight to stay on.

www.rnz.co.nz

The Greens here have co leaders. Their rules say one of them has to be a women and one has to be a Maori. The other coleader is both. She's safe due to party rules.

32/107 delegates voted against him at an annual party thing. By their rules 25% is all that's needed.

They changed the rules a while ago requiring a male and female Co leader.

He's also a minister in the current government. The Greens are also polling reasonably well around 10% in most polls.

Has not gone down well online and with a lot of Green party supporters and members.

Electoral strategy PoV him and @Kyriakos favorite NZ MP Cloe Swarbrick would be the best combo for an election. She's the only one with a seat, the other Co leader doesn't have the same profile.

Context not so long ago they almost got bounced out of parliament as one of their MPs admitted to benefit fraud. Thought she was bullet proof, she wasn't.

It's taken them 5 years to recover from that (5% to almost 10%, below 5% or no seat you don't get in). Chloe's seat isn't exactly safe as she swung a blue seat and Labour put up a weak candidate.

Chloe worked her ass off to win her seat this guy has worked his ass off to repair the party from near political annihilation.

Greens are coalitioned with Labour, last election I did a split vote between them as I liked the local Green MP more than the Labour dude and I party voted Labour. My electorate is a labour stronghold but with strong green party support (exceeded 20% one year).

My wife and her sister often vote greens they're not impressed either. Wife voted Labour last time while sister in law voted like I did with a split vote. Family circle lically votes Labour/Greens

 

[Kyriakos]

You didn't even spell my name correctly

 

[Zardnaar]

You didn't even spell my name correctly

Apologies and fixed. It's late here on medication is my excuse

 

[Arwon]

Just looks like internal party democracy in action.

 

[EnglishEdward]

I am always a little sceptical of letting delegates making their own decisions at party conferences.

They tend to divide into argumentative factions that can get carried away by themselves.

 

[Zardnaar]

Just looks like internal party democracy in action.

With just over 25% of the vote? They don't even need to put up their own candidate and even if they did the other 70% can torpedo that one anyway.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...ks-so-does-the-greens-biggest-political-asset

Another take.

 

[Gorbles]

By their rules 25% is all that's needed.

Rules are the rules, you don't have to like them. Try changing them instead.

 

[Arwon]

With just over 25% of the vote? They don't even need to put up their own candidate and even if they did the other 70% can torpedo that one anyway.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...ks-so-does-the-greens-biggest-political-asset

Another take.

I don't have particularly strong priors about how political parties should set thresholds for putting an issue on their agenda for deliberation, but "less than half" does seem a reasonable starting point.

 

[Zardnaar]

I don't have particularly strong priors about how political parties should set thresholds for putting an issue on their agenda for deliberation, but "less than half" does seem a reasonable starting point.

Rolling a leader on less than 30% representing maybe 2% (7.2% at election 30% of that).

IWith 5 weeks to go I can see them losing 2% in the polls which is 30% of their current support.

 

[Arwon]

Rolling a leader on less than 30% representing maybe 2% (7.2% at election 30% of that).

IWith 5 weeks to go I can see them losing 2% in the polls which is 30% of their current support.

Those are the rules they use. You have to respect the way things are. Otherwise, you'll get blowback for wanting to change the rules, and people won't like you.

 

[Zardnaar]

Those are the rules they use. You have to respect the way things are. Otherwise, you'll get blowback for wanting to change the rules, and people won't like you.

They changed the rules not to long ago.

Reminds me of a union I was in required a 75% threshold and 6 months of arguements to get a 1 year contract.

 

[Arwon]

You must be mistaken, change and improvement isn't possible except by spending decades voting for boring moderates.

 

[Kyriakos]

Rolling a leader on less than 30% representing maybe 2% (7.2% at election 30% of that).

IWith 5 weeks to go I can see them losing 2% in the polls which is 30% of their current support.

It is just a self-defeating rule, but proponents will find a way to support nonsense.
Besides, you know that only one person matters in the Green party. And she matters a lot ^_^

 

[Zardnaar]

It is just a self-defeating rule, but proponents will find a way to support nonsense.
Besides, you know that only one person matters in the Green party. And she matters a lot ^_^

She might matter a lot more next year.

Last time something like this happened they bleed support. They almost went out 2017.

Cloe has future party leader stamped all over her but her and Shaw are there most effective MPs.

It's not impossible to come back if you go out but it's only happened once it's the political kiss of death here for the most part.

 

[E.man]

5 weeks out and they're using this 'interesting ' 25% rule.

What are they trying to achieve?
Would have thought the current 'climate ' would be ideal for Greens party.

In Oz our Greens under Bandt have done well, and even conservative voters went as far as 'Teal '.

 

[Zardnaar]

5 weeks out and they're using this 'interesting ' 25% rule.

What are they trying to achieve?
Would have thought the current 'climate ' would be ideal for Greens party.

In Oz our Greens under Bandt have done well, and even conservative voters went as far as 'Teal '.

That's the puzzle they're not acieving anything.

Most radical wing seems to be salty because he compromised on some environment thing.
But he had to compromise to get it across the line and/or survive a change in government as the original legislation was gone by lunchtime when there's a change of government.

They also needed labour to sign off on it.

So it was basically a choice between something vs nothing.

I suspect they also want Chloe as conleader (in effect the leader). They've always had co leaders but one usually comes to be seen as the leader.

Looks like he's running again.

Green Party's James Shaw confirms he will run as co-leader again

James Shaw says he will contest the Green Party's co-leadership after being ousted from the role, he tells RNZ's Morning Report.

www.rnz.co.nz

 

[E.man]

That's the puzzle they're not acieving anything.

Most radical wing seems to be salty because he compromised on some environment thing.
But he had to compromise to get it across the line and/or survive a change in government as the original legislation was gone by lunchtime when there's a change of government.

They also needed labour to sign off on it.

So it was basically a choice between something vs nothing.

I suspect they also want Chloe as conleader (in effect the leader). They've always had co leaders but one usually comes to be seen as the leader.

Looks like he's running again.

Green Party's James Shaw confirms he will run as co-leader again

James Shaw says he will contest the Green Party's co-leadership after being ousted from the role, he tells RNZ's Morning Report.

www.rnz.co.nz

I don't know anything about NZ Greens but they seem to have incorporated a slew of practises that make being an active part of practical politics very difficult.

No wonder they halved their own vote. Ours have been on gradual climb and a recent increase.

I'm in ACT and we have a Labor/ Greens coalition govt with substantial Greens input.

 

[Zardnaar]

I don't know anything about NZ Greens but they seem to have incorporated a slew of practises that make being an active part of practical politics very difficult.

No wonder they halved their own vote. Ours have been on gradual climb and a recent increase.

I'm in ACT and we have a Labor/ Greens coalition govt with substantial Greens input.

NZs a bit more progressive than Aussie or UK overall the left wins 50% of the time so you don't have then long stretches if Conservative/"Liberal" rule.

Greens have been mainstream here since 1999 under their own banner, 1996 as a larger alliance and influencing things since the 70's.

Problem for them right now is Labour doesn't actually need them they have an absolute majority so they have no actual lerage. They might in the next government as they'll be needed in a coalition (or they're sitting in opposition).

Polls right now are on the knives edge it's possible Jacinda and Greens are in opposition next year. Then they're probably out for 9 years.

Chloe Swarbrick rules out bid to be Greens co-leader

Green MP Chloe Swarbrick has ruled herself out of running for the Green Party co-leadership.

www.rnz.co.nz

Cloes ruled out running she's basically the only other viable leader. All the other Maps are also ruling it out apart from one and she's a nobody (first term MP)so isn't really viable.

Apparently delegate turnout was low so there's that as well.

 

[Kyriakos]

Chloe should just create her own party

I'd vote for her, if I could.

 

[Zardnaar]

Chloe should just create her own party

I'd vote for her, if I could.

She wouldn't be the first.

But she's not in a safe seat either. I think she will retain.

She won because a popular right wing MP stood down (she was from that parties liberal wing) and the Labour candidate sucked barely even turning up to try and win the electorate.

And she had a higher name recognition than the National candidate and she worked her ass off doing things like door knocking and public speaking.

One party had a melt down other party stood a meh candidate.

Generally to go solo you need to have a safe seat personally loyal to you and be a minister or ex minister and it hasn't really been done since the 90's. A few lingered into the 2000's the last one went 2017 iirc.

There's kind of one left but he wasn't a hold over from the 90's and has a Suger daddy deal with the bigger party. He's basically there to soak up that extra 1-4% of votes which are "wasted" if he's not there. Generally worth an extra seat or three but currently worth 8 or 9 due to the rights infighting a couple of years ago.