The Greens have made their most explicit statements that they could go into a coalition government with the National Party. While no such deals are being considered, according to the Sunday Star-Times, Jeanette Fitzsimons says they want to 'leave the door open' for a blue-green coalition. Co-leader Russel Norman was equally enthusiastic about a shift in coalition policy:
Norman said any decision "will be based on policy and principle, we will look at policies and compare Labour and National... and see which one is less bad". If National had better sustainability policies than Labour "it would be unprincipled not to consider them", he said.
Norman justifies the new approach to National by saying that there is little to differentiate the parties' environmental policies - which is quite correct. The problem for the Greens is that having committed to playing the parliamentary game and wanting to be in a government, they're becoming hostage to that slippery slope. The thinking is that 'if Labour aren't actually so bad, and National aren't that different from Labour, then maybe National aren't so bad after all'. It all just shows that the Greens aren't really a leftwing party at all. Ultimately their future lies in the centre of the political spectrum, being left on some things, and right on others.
Interestingly, the party's other news items this week included Fitzsimons admitting that Helen Clark's policy of a carbon-neutral NZ was actually more radical than the Greens had ever proposed (which shows just how moderate and timid the Greens really are, even on their own raison d'etre), and the Greens now supporting tax cuts, and wanting a $1 billion to go to business, to encourage those businesses that are reducing their carbon emissions or doing other eco-friends things. They really are becoming the "eco-business party".
