Anthony Hubbard reports on Sue Bradford’s decision to leave Parliament:
MP SUE Bradford threatened to resign from the Greens if they became a swing party which could go with either National or Labour, party sources have revealed.
Bradford’s resignation last month was not just because she was disappointed at her defeat by Metiria Turei for the job of woman co-leader, as Bradford claimed.
It also reflected her disillusionment with what she saw as greater readiness by co-leaders Turei and Russel Norman to deal with National. Bradford, said a party source, “wanted to stay staunch”, and wanted the Green Party to remain left-wing.
Labour’s determination never to form a government with the Greens put the party in a terrible situation. If you want to have an effect on environmental issues you really have to have a place in the government and Clark made it pretty clear that the Green Party would never occupy such a position. This wasn’t a problem for Bradford who doesn’t seem to have any interest in environmental issues and was able to advance her social justice causes through private members bills that she could negotiate on a case by case basis, but a policy of permanent opposition wasn’t viable for the party as a whole.
The Greens are always more likely to form a government with Labour but they need to be in a position to realistically threaten to form a government with National before Labour will take them seriously in post-election negotiations.
Labour could have avoided this if they’d built a proper relationship with the Greens the way National has with ACT. Instead Labour’s management of the relationship since the 2005 election has been an unmitigated disaster. Clark chose to go with New Zealand First as a preferred partner (how’d that work out again?) but adopted Bradford’s section 59 bill and managed to get all the unpopular publicity of supporting the Greens without actually having them in government. During the last election the Greens ran voters in swing electorates – and why wouldn’t they? – costing Labour several electorate seats because of the split vote on the left.
It would have been nice if things could have worked out the way Bradford wanted it but that was up to Labour, and they’ve made their position crystal clear, all Norman and Fitzsimons are doing is playing the crappy hand they’ve been dealt.
I made much the same comments at The Standard, who love to bash the Greens, but are conspicuously silent on Labour who are much much further to the right on most economic issues.
Comment by George Darroch — October 11, 2009 @ 2:54 pm
Complete nonsense, Danyl. Not for the first time, the words “Clark … Labour” bring the angry mist swirling in front of your usually perceptive eyes, and logic disappears.
There was no Labour-Green majority after 2005. There was a potential Labour-Green-Maori Party majority (plus Anderton, obviously). I guess it’s pointless to argue about what would have happened if such a government had been formed, because we’ll never know. So I’ll just tell you: collapse. And quickly. Turia was prepared to deal with Brash, for God’s sake. Brash! It was only ever personal for Turia, and probably still is.
But in any case, Clark had definitely wanted a Labour-Green majority in 2005. It’s a shame politicians feel they have to send signals (the Clark-Fitzsimons car ride, the Brash-Dunne coffee) rather than just spell it out, but there we are. The signals were clear. Even Donald and Fitzsimons acknowledged after the post-2005 election that Clark really did want the Greens. But not the Maori Party (and electorally, she was right).
The deal with Peters did work out – on policy. There was no walk out, no “up with this we will not put”. It lasted three years. Labour probably would have been better off if it hadn’t, but it did.
In some fantasy world, Clark could have turned a very close election after two terms, into a majority for a fourth term, excluding unreliable parners (but nobody ever explains how – oh hang on, wasn’t it by installing Phil Goff as leader in the third term? Yeah, that’s a guaranteed winner).
Labour and the Greens did both get it wrong in 2002, when it was easier for them. That’s the real lesson (National take note): don’t get complacent and throw away a winning hand, because you won’t get dealt it next time. In 2005, that’s how it turned out.
Comment by sammy — October 11, 2009 @ 3:19 pm
I liked your blog better when it was just satire Danyl. This is now the umpteeth time I start reading a post and instead of it giving me a smile it causes some dry retching, perhaps you can put a little code word in the heading so I can save myself the trouble. (Maybe something like -LC-? It would really be appreciated).
Comment by dimmocrazy — October 11, 2009 @ 3:20 pm
I like reading your blog Danyl, your usually satirical style lightens up the political blogosphere and it’s nice to see you have a go at anyone who you think is wrong. i do get worried though when commentators like sammy and dimmocrazy feel the need to have a go at your when your work is not what they usually like. could that also be what would have prevented a labour-greens coalition from the labour point of view? the minute the greens ever went off topic labour would have ridiculed them and made dry retching sounds and called it all nonsense?
Comment by TightyRighty — October 11, 2009 @ 3:43 pm
No, what prevented a Labour-Greens coalition was that governments need a majority.
Comment by sammy — October 11, 2009 @ 3:48 pm
Actually, I think TightlyRightly is right, it’s your blog, after all. Therefore, my apologies, it was a cheap shot.
Comment by dimmocrazy — October 11, 2009 @ 4:20 pm
On the upside, I have had a laugh today on being lectured by members of the party of Michael Cullen about how the Greens aren’t left wing enough.
Comment by George Darroch — October 11, 2009 @ 5:04 pm
The Greens effectively ruled themselves out of forming a government when Jeanette Fitzsimons went on TV in 2002 and said that she would withdraw support of a Labour government if it let the moritorium on GE expired. From that moment on, I knew that the Greens would never be in government – not for that coming term anyway.
From that moment on, the Clark/Cullen administration gravitated towards the likes of UF and NZF, and it arguably changed the course of New Zealand political history (rather like Allan Hewson’s missed penalty in 1981).
Comment by millsy — October 11, 2009 @ 5:13 pm
..should I saw ‘rather like Allen Hewson’s non-missed penalty’…
Comment by millsy — October 11, 2009 @ 5:17 pm
The Greens effectively ruled themselves out of forming a government when Jeanette Fitzsimons went on TV in 2002 and said that she would withdraw support of a Labour government if it let the moritorium on GE expired. From that moment on, I knew that the Greens would never be in government – not for that coming term anyway.
I’m sorry, but you’re going to have to explain why.
Say Labour had a policy of privatising ACC. Would the Greens be unreasonable in saying that this was a bottom line? I tend to think that the GE issue was a non-issue, and the wrong thing for the Greens to put their foot down on, but surely it wasn’t a huge thing to concede?
NZ First and United Future also had some pretty public bottom lines. What made the Greens one unreasonable, apart from damaging the ego of Helen Clark?
Comment by George Darroch — October 11, 2009 @ 5:23 pm
I dont think HC really wanted a coalition partner, in the words of a commentator on election night on 2002 ‘pull the rug out from under her’ half way through a term. Which would have led to election defeat in 2005 (and the success of what amounted to a coup d’etat by the neo-liberal right by installing Brash as National Party leader)
Comment by millsy — October 11, 2009 @ 5:29 pm
The lesson is that bottom lines in coalition systems are powerful medicine. Sometimes you get the lot, sometimes you alienate your allies and get shut out.
L
Comment by Lew — October 11, 2009 @ 5:39 pm
Clark in 2005 declared the Maori Party the last cab off the rank. Further she never even attempted to talk to them about a Labour-Green-Maori Government as oppossed to Labour-NZ First-United. Now I can understand that after talking to everyone, you might prefer to go with the devil you know, but he rmistake was to insult the Maori Party and refuse to even ask them would they consider a confidence and supply agreement, and under what terms.
Comment by dpf — October 11, 2009 @ 7:44 pm
Danyl, I think you’re over-looking Corngate. Labour got ambushed by a bunch of greenie nutters lead by Hager and abetted by John Campbell. The Green Party are mad beyond redemption. Labour might just be able to ditch their thuggish element.
But by around 2007 Labour had for some very odd reason decided that Hager was their very special friend and that they should spend their last remaining years in power tilting at windmills in the guise of the EBGs and meanwhile dragging their heals dealing with Fields but extravagantly defending Peters.
That’s about as much as I can come to Labour’s support.
Comment by Neil — October 11, 2009 @ 8:56 pm
[...] blogs: Labour’s determination never to form a government with the Greens put the party in a terrible [...]
Pingback by Sensible advice from Dim-Post | Kiwiblog — October 12, 2009 @ 9:01 am