Although the Greens present themselves as 'left' on the political spectrum and include veteran protester Sue Bradford among their new MPs, while long-time Trotskyist leader keith Locke was #7 on their list and just missed out, there is nothing left-wing about the Greens that I can see.
Their TV election ad was quite conservative, for instance. It was interesting that they had the much-arrested Sue Bradford doing the voice-over for the part on law and order. This part of the ad suggested it was time to get tougher on criminals.
#5 on the Greens list, and therefore also a new MP, is Wild Greens leader and Rastafarian Nandor Tanczos. Nandor, a NZer of Hungarian descent, seems to labour under the misapprehension he is Jamaican. However his identity confusion is merely amusing; there is nothing funny about the Wild Greens who are the luddite youth wing of the party and who took 'credit' for destroying a GM potato crop at Lincoln University (see the editorial in 'revolution' #10).
In effect, the Greens are the most naked face of the anti-humanist and irrationalist trends that are so prevalent in contemporary society. Whereas the capitlaist put profits before people, the Greens prefer trees and animals, which is hardly a step forward. It is hardly accidental that the Greens did best in the party vote in the more privileged white middle and upper income constituencies. Indeed they draw from a similar constituency to ACT. But ACT represents the more upbeat elements of this class sector, while the Greens represent the more pessimistic elements.
The Greens' veneer of being warm, innocent, naive, honest and completely different to the usual career politicians also has little to do with reality. In fact, the Greens basically screwed over the Alliance to get where they are. Take, for example, Fitzsimons' win in Coromandel. The main reason she was even within striking range in the seat is because she was an Alliance candidate there in 1993 and 1996, when the Greens were part of the Alliance. Most of the work done to put her within proximity of taking the seat was done by non-Green members of the Alliance for the five years the Greens were in the Alliance. She was an Alliance list MP from 1996, giving her a further high profile. Also, while her and fellow Green leader Rod Donald were Alliance MPs, they no doubt received substantial funds part of which presumably went into the Greens.
Exploiting the Alliance and thus getting near capturing a constituency seat and then leaving, plundering a large amount of Alliance socio-economic policy in the process, all the time presenting themselves as innocuous, touchy-feely, lovely people - and actually managing to come out of the whole business smelling of roses and positioning themselves on the moral high ground - is quite some achievement. Not to mention, entirely manipulative, cynical and duplicitous. The Greens' road into parliament is thus no different from any other bourgeois politicians.
As for how radical they are even on economic issues where they have the veneer of caring about social equality, a sign of this was given by the Green candidate addressing a mass rally in the midst of the occupation here at Canterbury University in early October. It would be nice to have free education, she whimpered into the mike (presumably in Green circles speaking properly is macho aggro), but it is just not really economically possible!
The low horizons of the Greens on economic issues have not prevented them from trying to get one over on Labour and Alliance yesterday, the same day the special votes gave them six MPs. The first thing they called for was $20 more a week for beneficiaries, which they said would be nice for Xmas for the poor. This, of course, was one of the key Alliance planks in the election campaign, something (Alliance leader) Anderton and co knew Labour would not allow to be delivered. Labour PM Clark immediately declared in response to the Green statement that this was just not feasible financially.
That, of course, also gives an indication of what kind of Labour government Clark is running. $20 a week increase in benefits is *less* than what was taken off beneficiaries by National in the 1991 cuts. In other words, Clark and Labour are saying they are going to maintain the ruthless benefit cuts imposed by Jenny Shipley, Ruth Richardson and Jim Bolger in the 1991 'mother of all budgets' (as then-finance minister Richardson called it).
Perhaps the most dangerous thing about the Greens is the way they will use their parliamentary position to push their wider luddite, anti-humanist and pro-irrationalist agenda. Expect more media coverage of Green nonsense about 'Frankenstein food' and panics over anything and everything that the increasingly insecure liberal middle class gets shaken up by these days.
The rise of the Greens has already prompted Labour to adapt to environmentalist pressure at the expense of workers' jobs in the logging industry on the West Coast. While the liberal urban middle class wishes to preserve nature in its pristine form for their own voyeuristic enjoyment, actual human beings - workers in the forestry industry - are to be made jobless. The Greens don't want sustainable logging on the Coast - logging which is entirely sensible since it maintains jobs while allowing for the replacement of logged timber - but instead have demanded a halt to all logging of native timber.
The Greens seem to think that everyone made redundant through this policy will find a job in eco-tourism or keeping the countryside clean by picking up rubbish. In other words, today's moderately-paid industrial workers are to be turned into tomorrow's low paid service/menial workers, scavenging an existence on the economic margins.
This position has been adopted by Labour, which is bad news for workers in an already mightily depressed area. And bad news for workers in other parts of the country, which the Greens haven't got around to yet, but no doubt will.
So far, Labour has at least baulked at most panic-mongering positionsand demands of the Greens on GM food. However, since Labour MPs are drawn from the same increasingly insecure and irrational class as the Greens, perhaps it is only a matter of time before ground is given in this area as well.
All in all, there seems nothing to celebrate in the elections. The blue Tories are out and the pink and green Tories are in. Never has the need for an alternative to the multi-coloured Tory raincoat been greater.
Bill Cochrane wrote:
>>It means that the Labour/alliance govt don't have an absolute majority at
>>the moment, due to the redistribution of seats - this isn't as bigger
>>problem as it might seem as the greens where part of the alliance until
>>recently and will probably block with the Labour/Alliance govt on just
>about
>>anything, excepting some specific green issues (farmers are scared of the
>>greens and the govt is unlikely to support any major additional regulation
>>of agriculture outside of genetically modified foods) .
>>Nandor Tanczos is way cool on the tellie - young guy with dreadlocks and a
>>south pacific rasta attitude but to me the real interest value in the
>greens
>>is Sue Bradford. She must hold the world record for getting arrested on
>>demo's of which she has organized more than anyone else anywhere (last
APEC
>>round for instance). Sue has probably been THE activist nemesis of the new
>>right here since the early eighties through her role in the unemployed
>>workers movement - the tories are privately spewing over this development
>as
>>are a number of union bureaucrats whom shall remain nameless, who she has
>>irritated over the years.
>>All of this could change as a number of legal challenges to results are
>>likely which particularly in the case of Tauranga, held by the NZ first
>>leader Winston Peters by 63 votes, could see a major redistribution of
>>seats. Naturally to if the tories win Coromandel in court the Greens will
>be
>>out again. Any redistribution will likely favour the govt so its largely a
>>question of whether or not the Labour/alliance will need the greens or
not.
>>It has to be said that this election has been a fuck up of the first order
>>with slow counts and even a 100 ballot papers vanishing in an electorate
>>where the member has a majority of under seventy- the constitutional law
>>dudes can't fine a precedent here so are looking to the electoral law of
>>places like Bangladesh for guidance.
>>A real bright spot for me in all this is the election of Georgina Beyer,
>the
>>labour candidate in the predominately semi-rural Wairarapa, and first
>trans-
>>gendered MP in New Zealand. Prior to this she was a much admired mayor of
a
>>supposedly redneck town. go Georgina