Since 2005 it has become increasingly clear that the Green Party’s electoral ambition has moved well beyond the five percent threshold. Rather than simply winning seats in parliament, the Greens want greater access to power and more opportunities to directly influence policy. From early 2006 the Green Party deliberately repositioned themselves in the hope of attracting a broader, more mainstream constituency. As Green co-leader Russel Norman stated: ‘The challenge for the Greens, I think, is to actually move out, move more into the suburbs and to appeal more to suburban New Zealanders.’ This blog post focuses on the ways in which the Green Party have tried to court this suburban vote. This post is the fourth of five posts, written by Niki Lomax, based on her recent University of Otago Politics Department Honour dissertation which discusses the path the Greens’ have taken to get to this point, focusing on what has made the Green Party successful and what barriers has it faced in its quest for success. [Read more below]
The real challenge for the Greens is to achieve a broad appeal without alienating their reliable constituents, or what Ronald Inglehart would describe as the postmaterialist constituency. Part of the Green Party’s appeal is that they are different from the mainstream parties and present an alternative for disillusioned voters. As Bale noted, green parties are successful if they can be seen as both insiders and outsiders at the same time.[1] The Green Party’s repositioning efforts since 2005 indicate that this is exactly what they are trying to achieve.
A new leader, a new direction
In November 2005, less than two months after the general election, Green Party co-leader Rod Donald tragically and suddenly died. At the party’s annual general meeting in June 2006, the Greens’ campaign manager, Dr Russel Norman was elected co-leader. This was a highly significant turning point for the Green Party. Immediately following the election, Norman delivered a speech in which he stated that he hoped the Greens could broaden their support base ‘in the suburbs and provincial towns’.[2] This phrase ‘into the suburbs’ has been repeatedly used by the Norman and Greens to describe their desire for a more mainstream voter base. Rather than calling it ‘the mainstream voter’, or ‘middle New Zealand’, a phrase used frequently by the two major parties, the Greens have deliberately decided to frame it as a ‘suburban vote’. Their pursuit of this suburban vote has led to a noticeable shift in the Green Party’s strategy and marketing.
By 2006, to the Greens’ considerable advantage, discussing climate change was no longer solely the domain of fringe groups and radicals. That year saw the release of Al Gore’s climate change documentary An Inconvenient Truth, which propelled environmental issues into the mainstream media.[3] In October the Stern Report was released by the British Treasury; this report famously described climate change as the ‘greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen.’[4] The Green Party had spent years being ridiculed for their radical positions; they had been called names and dismissed as hippies. The 2005-2008 parliamentary term saw a shift in public and media perception of the issues the Green Party had been advocating since its parliamentary entry in 1996. Climate change was now a mainstream issue.
‘Vote for me’
The repositioning of the Greens and their desire to attract more mainstream support is reflected in the marketing strategy adopted for their 2008 campaign. This strategy involved emphasising the Party’s brand rather than specific policies. The key failure of the Greens’ 2005 election campaign had been their attempt to over diversify their message in an effort to shake the reputation of being a single-issue party. In 2008 the award winning ‘Vote for me’ campaign, produced by Auckland advertising agency Special Group, received considerable praise for its minimalist and emotive message.[5] As figure 3.1a8 and figure 3.1b9 show below, the Greens’ 2008 billboard was a vast aesthetic improvement on the amateurish 2005 advert. The striking contrast between the billboards is highly symbolic of the Green Party’s transition from outsider to insider status. In 2008, the Greens also used celebrity endorsement to emphasis their mainstream appeal, in particular popular actor Robyn Malcolm who launched the campaign and lent her voice to the television adverts.[6] Prior to 2008, the Green Party had produced all its own advertising. [7][8]
The use of professional marketing indicates that Green Party recognised that to be electorally competitive and appeal to a wider constituency, professional design and effective communication of the Green brand was imperative. This is a clear shift away from the anti-party party (APP), grassroots campaign approach dominant in the 1990s and early 2000s. The APP model, typified by Die Grünen in the 1980s, explicitly discouraged professionalism, instead advocating grassroots involvement.[9] However, if a green party wants to appear credible to voters outside the postmaterialist constituency, it is necessary for them to compromise.
2008: Communicating relevance
In 2008, as it had done before every election since 1999, the Green Party ruled out the possibility of a support agreement with the National Party following the election. The 2008 election was National’s to lose; going into the campaign they were polling strongly, and the chances of Labour maintaining its incumbency were slim.[10] This Green Party position was unsurprising. The Greens are universally described as a party of the left and its stance on social issues is considerably more complementary to a relationship with Labour than with National.[11] Furthermore, split-voting trends indicate that if a Green voter decides to split their vote, it will most likely be a Labour-Green split.[12] As noted in the last blog post, split voting in this way was even encouraged by a Green Party pamphlet during the 2005 campaign.[13] Consequently, there exists a substantiated expectation among voters, that a red-green coalition is considerably more likely than a blue-green coalition. Therefore, because the Greens were almost certainly not going to be in government after the election, their task for the 2008 campaign was to communicate that relevance was not dependent on cabinet positions.
In addition to professional marketing, the Green Party also changed their rhetoric in an attempt to assert their independent brand. The Greens frequently used the word ‘independent’ to describe themselves during the campaign. As with the phrase ‘into the suburbs’, this is a deliberate framing decision. By describing themselves as independent, the subtext is ‘we are not an appendage of the Labour Party.’ In 2005, the party had focused on promoting the idea of a red-green coalition, however, in 2008 they wanted to communicate that they offered a distinct alternative to both major parties. Jeanette Fitzsimons stated at the Green Party campaign launch, that if the voters wanted change, why vote for ‘Mother Coke or Father Pepsi’?[14] This analogous description of National and Labour, implied they were merely different brands selling the same product. Instead, Fitzsimmons insisted, the change the country needed was a Green change. Simultaneously, the Greens’ deemphasised policies that could be seen as traditionally left-wing and focused on environmental issues during the campaign, specifically the climate crisis, peak oil and food safety.[15] The Greens did not want to be seen as on the left or right; they believed these terms were no longer relevant.[16] Instead they wanted to be seen as an independent party that was positioned on a ‘new dimension of politics’ that the terms left and right could not adequately describe.[17]
The Green Party’s highly professionalised campaign saw a repeat of its 2002 performance with the party winning 6.72 percent of the vote and nine seats in Parliament. This was a reasonable improvement on their 2005 election result of 5.07 percent. This improvement can be largely attributed to their campaign which not only communicated an independent Green brand, but reflected the party’s general shift towards professionalisation and significantly downplayed the NSM factor. The success of the National Party can be blamed for the Greens not exceeding their 2002 result. As had been the case in 2005, the strength of the National Party would have caused some Green supporters to vote for Labour in an attempt to prevent a National-led government. Others may have felt unconvinced by the Green Party’s insistence that they would have influence outside of government. Furthermore, the global financial crisis created a campaign environment where economic downturn, job losses and tax cuts dominated the public agenda. As Inglehart discuss, green parties do not do well when the public is focused on materialist issues.[18] Nevertheless, the campaign was generally a success and the Green Party became the third largest party in parliament.
A mainstream strategy
Since the 2008 election, the Green Party’s desire to attract a broader, more mainstream constituency has become evident to an even greater extent. The Greens strategy can be split into three key elements: their desire to (1) deemphasise the NSM factor and erode their reputation as ‘unreliable hippies’, (2) build a reputation as economically credible and (3) show that policy progress was not dependent on government inclusion. Each of these strategies aimed to strengthen the perception that the Greens were insiders with credibility and influence.
Polarising personalities
The desire to change the Green Party’s image and move away from old stereotypes rooted in the culture of NSMs has been most obviously expressed through the party’s leadership decisions. Following Rod Donald’s death and later Jeanette Fitzsimmons retirement, the party membership voted on their replacements and in each case they chose the less controversial candidate. These leadership contests show that the repositioning and new strategic direction of the party is supported by the majority of the Green Party membership.
In the 2006 race for the position of male co-leader, Russel Norman ran against Nándor Tánczos, a Green MP most well-known for his dreadlocks and his strong stance on drug reform. For a party trying to disassociate themselves from this image, the choice was obvious. After Norman was elected leader, Tánczos commented that: ‘It probably was the deciding factor...that I'm a dreadlocked Rastafarian, that probably was a single factor for many people.’[19] For the Green membership, it appears Russel Norman’s suit and tie approach was more appealing. Similarly, following Fitzsimmons retirement in 2009, certainly as far as the media were concerned, the choice between Metiria Turei and Sue Bradford ultimately came down to public image. As political commentator for the New Zealand Herald Audrey Young wrote: ‘Turei is young, talented, non-scary and Māori…Bradford, on the other hand, has a high national profile established over decades of left-wing activism on social justice issues and is definitely more “scary”.’[20] Bradford’s association with the enormously divisive ‘anti-smacking’ debate was also seen to be a considerable disadvantage.[21] Therefore, while Turei was less well known and less experienced, she was also the less controversial option. Party members agreed with this sentiment and in May 2009, Metiria Turei was elected female co-leader of the Green Party.[22] This decision, and the decision to elect Russel Norman three years earlier, suggests the majority of the party membership support a pragmatic shift towards attracting a broader constituency.
Aside from non-controversial leaders, the Green Party also has a highly academic caucus which contributes to a more professional or credible image for the party. The postcard published by the National Party in 1999, that accused Bradford and Tánczos in particular of being anarchists, exemplifies the way stereotypes were used to attack the Greens’ credibility. The current Green Party list does not encourage these negative stereotypes to the same extent. For example, if the Greens were to win ten percent of the vote in the 2011 general election, the new Green caucus would include two doctoral graduates, one of which was a Fulbright Scholar, an Oxford graduate and an atmospheric scientist.[23] While this list of credentials is as equally selective as those on the National Party’s 1999 postcard, it does highlight the more conventional, academic backgrounds of many of the 2011 Green candidates.
Changing perceptions in the media
In the 1990s and early 2000s, these ‘unreliable hippie’ stereotypes often made the Green Party the subject of ridicule in the media. For example, in 2001 an article published in the New Zealand Herald about the Greens annual conference mockingly referred to their ‘hemp rope-wrapped Budget pack’ and said the venue for the conference was a motorcamp in Nelson ‘cabins available, but bring your own sheets’.[24] These stereotypes have not completely disappeared; for example, in the Dominion Post in September 2011, a columnist opined; ‘While Labour has flip-flopped policy-wise over the last three years, the Greens have stuck to their peace-loving guns and now their organic chickens are coming home to roost.’[25] However, generally, the media narrative in the past year has focused more on the Greens deliberate shift away from the NSM factor and its associated stereotypes. As Adam Bennett wrote in an article for the New Zealand Herald: ‘What are the chances of getting a nice cup of herbal tea at a Green Party annual meeting these days? Not good’.[26] An article published in Metro magazine by Denis Welch carried the same tone: ‘If you wrote a book about the party’s centrist shift in the past couple of years, you might want to call it The Decline and Fall of the Roman Sandal’.[27] This shift in media narrative and its effect on public perception is a crucial aspect of the Greens strategy.
Russel Norman: pursuing economic credibility
In addition to the Green’s reputation as ‘dope-smoking hippies’, the other stereotype that has been significantly damaging to the party’s credibility is their alleged economic incompetence. The Exclusive Brethren pamphlet circulated in 2005 is a good example of this stereotype being used against the Greens; the pamphlet urged readers to remember that ‘a failed economy can’t afford to spend anything on the environment.’[28] In an effort to erode this perception and strengthen the party’s economic credibility, the last few years has seen the Green Party alter its rhetoric and develop comprehensive economic policy that aims to create a strong, sustainable economy that, in the words of Russel Norman, ‘performs well in a carbon-constrained world’.[29]
As the party’s economics spokesperson, Norman has played an integral role in building a new economic reputation for the party. In 2010, journalist Nikki MacDonald wrote that: ‘Norman’s handle on economics could prove key in courting a broader audience’.[30] This sentiment has been expressed by other journalists impressed with Norman. Norman frequently gives speeches on the party’s vision for a green economy. He is careful to emphasis that the Greens are not anti-capitalist or anti-growth, as many perceive them to be, but advocates of sustainable growth and ‘pragmatic capitalism’; the Green Party, states Norman, want to ‘make the capital markets part of the solution, instead of part of the problem.’[31] Norman’s economic reputation is strengthened by his appearance; unlike Rod Donald who was famous for wearing braces and dressing eccentrically, Norman is rarely seen out of a business suit. This not only contributes to the erosion of stereotypes associated with the NSM factor, but adds credibility to his pro-business, pro-capitalist economic rhetoric.
The media response to the Greens’ new economic emphasis has been positive. Commenting on the Greens’ 2011 alternative budget, pundit Denis Welch wrote: ‘No pie in the sky here; just closely argued (and properly costed) policies that make National look behind the times and Labour off the pace.’[32] Similarly, following the launch of the party’s ‘Green jobs’ as part of their 2011 election campaign, political columnist for the New Zealand Herald, John Armstrong wrote: ‘National might still claim the Greens do not understand economics. The purpose of yesterday's policy release was to demonstrate the Greens do understand - and are deadly serious about remedying the economy's structural weaknesses.’[33] By talking about ‘green economic opportunities’ and emphasising that ‘common sense capitalism means converting to a green economy sooner rather than later’, Norman presents the Greens as a pragmatic, mainstream, and economically competent alternative to the two major parties.[34]
‘Highly unlikely’: a relationship with National Party?
The Greens’ desire to show that policy progress is not reliant on government participation is an important part of their attempt to court a broader audience. In the spirit of transparency, before each election the Green Party membership decides on a position regarding post-election coalition arrangements. As noted above, the Green Party has explicitly ruled out the possibility of a formal support agreement with the National Party before each election since 1999. In 2009 the Greens signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the National-led government. This was not a coalition, or a support agreement; instead its purpose was to identify areas of common interest between the parties to create a framework in which they could ‘from time to time’ develop policy and legislation together.[35] This ‘good faith working relationship’ was the foundation for policies such as the home insulation scheme; this scheme, announced as part of the 2009 budget, promised $300 million over four years to subsidise home insulation, clean heat and other efficiency measures.[36]
Since its implementation the home insulation scheme has been used repeatedly by the Green Party as an example of their ability to influence policy under National leadership. Although they recognise that being in government would afford them more power, the Green leadership insist that being outside of government does not mean they have no power. While the Green Party’s sincere desire for policy progress should not be undermined, the decision to enter into a MoU with the National Party was a clever strategic move that encouraged a perception that regardless of which major party was in power, the Greens would still have relevance and, more importantly, influence.
Following the Party’s June annual general meeting in 2011, the Greens altered their position regarding a formal working relationship with the National Party, stating ‘it is highly unlikely that we could support a National Government on confidence and supply, but it is on the table.’ [37] This decision is enormously significant in terms of the Green Party’s repositioning. To an extent it is illuminating that there was debate among the membership over the use of the word ‘highly’, some suggesting their position should instead be ‘extremely’ unlikely.[38] The Greens want it known that no doors are firmly shut. Naturally, there has been considerable media speculation about the possibility of a blue-green coalition following the 2011 election. The Greens insist that ‘highly unlikely’ means just that; according to Turei and Norman, another MoU is the most likely post-election outcome.[39]
Following this announcement, Sue Bradford, who had resigned from Parliament in 2009, wrote a blog post condemning the Green Party for ‘stepping to the right’.[40] She said that the decision to ‘open the door’ to the possibility of working with National was the culmination of an internal debate that had ‘raged’ since early 2006. Furthermore, she said that by stating a support arrangement was ‘highly unlikely’, ‘[the Greens’] hope is that they’ll keep a whole bunch of different groups simultaneously happy with the new position.’[41] This point brings us back to the idea that to be successful the Greens need to find a balance between being seen as insiders and outsiders. By not completely ruling out a formal support arrangement with a National government, the Greens appear pragmatic and more likely to hold the balance of power. At the same time, by stressing that it is highly unlikely, they retain the confidence of core constituents, many of whom would consider such a relationship unthinkable. The Green Party are a party of the left. The importance of their ‘highly unlikely’ stance is not about whether or not it foreshadows a blue-green coalition; but that by suggesting it is not impossible they are distancing themselves from the reputation in the early 2000s as being unreliable and destabilising. Rather than refusing to work with anyone, the Greens are now open to working with anyone.
Simultaneously insiders and outsiders
As discussed in the second blog post, Katz and Mair’s ‘cartel party’ theory argues that in many Western democracies, highly professional political parties collude with each other and the state to secure their incumbency; this fosters disillusionment and apathy in the citizenry. Challenger parties, such as green parties, find success by presenting themselves as an alternative to the cartelised mainstream parties.[42] Certainly the Green Party gained electoral traction in the 1990s by emphasising its outsider status and capitalising on widespread disillusionment with the major political parties. The New Zealand Greens have now been in Parliament since 1996 and they are currently the third largest political party. Fifteen years inside Parliament makes it harder to convince the public they are outsiders. As a consequence of the Party’s increased electoral professionalism, pragmatism and repositioning, the Greens might be seen as having become part of the cartel they used to challenge. Peter Mair suggests that once this happens, green parties often find that the compromise required to achieve inclusion can lead to conflict within the party and loss of support from the party’s core postmaterialist voter base. This he terms the ‘natural limit to green success’.[43]
If the Green Party can move into the cartel, and thus have greater access to power and more opportunities for policy progress, while managing to simultaneously avoid alienating their postmaterialist constituents; this could prove the key to greater electoral success. The Greens must shift away from their NSM and APP legacy, but not to the extent that they undermine their distinction from the major parties, or cause damaging internal conflict. For example in October 2011, Green MP Catherine Delahunty stated during a public meeting at Otago University that if the Greens formed a support arrangement with National, she would resign.[44] If the Greens reposition themselves to the extent that they alienate their reliable constituents, and indeed some of their own MPs, this could prove detrimental to their electoral success. They must be insiders and outsiders at the same time.
As this blog post has discussed, since 2006 the Green Party have repositioned themselves to emphasise their insider status; however, their outsider status has not entirely eroded as a consequence. Although in many respects the Greens have become a mainstream party, their NSM legacy continues to provide them with a point of distinction. For example, in deliberate contrast to the conventional or mainstream political parties, the Greens emphasise a democratic party structure, a gender balanced co-leadership model and engagement in unconventional forms of political participation such as street protests and petitions.[45] In 2010 for example, along with Greenpeace, Forest and Bird and other groups, the Green Party led a campaign against the government’s proposals to mine national parks. This saw some 40-50,000 people march down Queen Street in Auckland, and a petition signed by more than 47,000 people.[46] As a result of such widespread public opposition, the National Government decided not to go ahead with the proposals.[47]
The Green Party celebrated this as a success for the environmental movement and a success for grassroots activism.[48] Engaging in activities like this not only reinforces their APP, grassroots approach to politics, but the publicity from these campaigns increases their support. Figure 3.250 presents aggregate poll data from 2010.[49]The increase in support that occurred around April and May coincided with the Greens anti-mining campaign; the street march occurred on the 1st of May 2010. Although this increase was fleeting, it does demonstrate that the Greens’ commitment to unconventional extra-parliamentary political engagement can have clear electoral benefits.
While Norman has become the face of pragmatism and economic credibility, Turei represents the party’s commitment to their outsider status. Turei led the anti-mining campaign and is the Green Party spokesperson for social justice issues. While Norman discusses green jobs, Turei discusses child poverty. This duality is crucial for the Greens success and balance is extremely important. If the Greens over-emphasis their economic credibility and workability, they risk alienating reliable constituents; if they overemphasis their commitment to grassroots activism they risk being seen as unreliable troublemakers. The Green Party’s 2011 election campaign slogan, ‘For a richer New Zealand’, neatly sums up this dual identity with the word ‘richer’ simultaneously referring to the Greens economic policies and their social policies. This duality deliberately reinforces their insider/outsider status. As shown in figure 3.351, as in 2008 with the ‘Vote for me’ campaign the advertisement is slick and professional; it is also simple and emotive.[50]
2011: Optimism and positional vacuums
Many political commentators are convinced that the 2011 election will see the Green Party achieve a higher electoral result than ever before. Although the Greens reject the terminology of the left-right spectrum, they remain fundamentally a party of the left. In the context of the 2011 election, this position could prove beneficial. Kitschelt argues that the left-libertarian parties become attractive if the major centre-left party is perceived to be weak.[51] Two months out from the election the Labour Party is polling around thirty percent.[52] Also, the Labour leadership faces frequent criticism, very low public approval ratings and persistent media speculation about potential leadership coups.[53] The combination of these factors makes for a very weak Labour Party going into the 2011 election. Consequently, there is significant potential for the Green Party to benefit from left-wing disillusionment. Kitschelt would argue that the Green Party’s positional vacuum on the left will widen as a consequence of Labour’s weakness; considering this coincides with the Greens’ shift toward the mainstream, which could also be viewed as an exercise in widening the party’s positional vacuum, this could prove conducive to greater Green success at the 2011 election.
Conclusion: conquering the suburbs
Since 2006, there has been a distinct shift in Green Party strategy. The Greens realised that in if they wanted to achieve an electoral result higher than five to seven percent, they would need to reposition themselves and broaden their support and target a ‘suburban’ constituency. This repositioning is exemplified by the contrast between the party’s 2005 election campaign and their 2008 campaign; the former being amateurish and ineffective, and the latter a result of the party’s adoption of electoral professionalism. If the party wanted to attract mainstream support, they needed to operate more like a mainstream party. The erosion of the APP model was a necessary compromise if the party were to attract a suburban constituency.
The Green Party continued to reposition itself following the 2008 election. Their strategy involved eroding their ‘hippie’ reputation, building economic credibility and emphasising that they were willing to work with anyone. Over the last three years, the Greens have done this very successfully. The most successful aspect of the Greens’ repositioning is that they have managed to achieve this without undermining their outsider status. While the emphasis on grassroots activism has considerably lessened, it has not completely disappeared. The 2010 mining protest is a good example of this. The Greens’ electoral potential is greater than seven percent, and by maintaining their dual insider/outsider status, the Greens have a much greater chance of reaching it.
Next blog post - Vote for me (Part 5): Conclusions
---------
The above blog post is the fourth of five posts taken from a dissertation submitted for the degree of Bachelor of Arts (Honours) at the University of Otago, by Niki Lomax, and entitled ‘Vote for Me: The Green Party’s quest for success’. Niki can be contacted at: [email protected] The dissertation was supervised by Bryce Edwards.
[1] Ruth Berry, “Greens ponder how to exert growing muscle.”
[2] Ruth Berry, “Greens name non-MP as co-leader,” New Zealand Herald, 3 June, 2006, accessed 1 October, 2011, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10384864.
[3] Leah Haines, “It’s so easy being Green,” New Zealand Herald, 12 November, 2006, accessed 2 October, 2011, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10410373.
[4] The Stern Report can be found at: “Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change,” British Treasury, accessed 3 August, 2011, http:/www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm.
[5] Bryce Edwards, “Party Strategy and the 2008 Election,” in Informing Voters? Politics, Media and the New Zealand Election 2008, ed. Chris Rudd, Janine Hayward, and Geoffrey Craig (Auckland, N.Z.: Pearson, 2009), 22-23.
[6] NZPA, “Future focus at Green campaign launch,” Stuff.co.nz, 5 October, 2008, accessed 5 October, 2011,
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/659622/Future-focus-at-Green-campaign-launch.
[7] Image source: Audrey Young, “Greens in billboard blitz,” New Zealand Herald, 1 August, 2005, accessed 1 August 2011, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10338486.
[8] Image source: Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, “The Green Party’s 2008 Advertising Campaign,” press release, 5 September 2008, accessed 13 October 2011, http://www.greens.org.nz/election08/advertising
launch.
[9] Carter, The Politics of the Environment: Ideas, Activism, Policy: 109.
[10] See: Shaun McGirr and Rob Salmond, “2008: Opinion polls and prediction markets in New Zealand,” in Key to Victory: The New Zealand General Election of 2008, ed. Stephen Levine and Nigel S. Roberts (Wellington, N.Z.: Victoria University Press, 2010).
[11] The 2008 NZES asked respondents to position New Zealand’s political parties on a scale from 1 to 10; 1 being left wing and 10 being right wing. The Green Party’s mean position was 2.6 on this spectrum. This indicates that the public clearly view the Green Party as a left wing party. See: Jack Vowles, “The 2008 Election: Why National Won,” in New Zealand Government and Politics, Fifth edition, ed. Raymond Miller, (Auckland, NZ: Oxford University Press, 2010), 369.
[12] In the 2008 election, of those who party voted Green, 47.16% gave their electorate vote to a Labour Party candidate. If you combine this with the number of people who party voted Labour, and voted for a Green Party candidate, to total percentage of red-green split votes is 5.20%. By comparison, 33.30% of Green voters gave their electorate vote to a Green Party candidate and 10.50% gave their vote to a National Party candidate. Data sourced from: “2008 General Election Split Voting Statistics - All Electorates,” New Zealand Electoral Commission, accessed 5 August, 2011, http://electionresults.govt.nz/election
results_2008/elect-splitvote-Overall.html
[13] Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, “Why Green goes so well with red…,” (Election pamphlet, 2005).
[14]Jeanette Fitzsimmons, “Through the Eyes of a Child,” speech, 4 October, 2008, accessed 4 October, 2011, http://www.greens.org.nz/ speeches/through-eyes-child-jeanettes-address-campaign-launch.
[15] In a chapter discussing Greens’ 2008 campaign, Green MP Catherine Delahunty stated that these issues were chosen because they resonated with an audience who now accepted the global scientific consensus on these issues. See: Catherine Delahunty, “The Greens,” in Key to Victory: The New Zealand General Election of 2008, ed. Stephen Levine and Nigel S. Roberts (Wellington, N.Z.: Victoria University Press, 2010), 84.
[16] Jeanette Fitzsimmons, “Left, Right and the Elephant,” speech, 4 June, 2006, accessed 13 June, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0606/S00036.htm.
[17] Jeanette Fitzsimmons, “Green Party Conference Address,” speech, 30 May 2009, Scoop website, accessed 13 October 2011, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0905/S00571.htm.
[18] Inglehart, “Public Support for Environmental Protection: Objective Problems and Subjective Values in 43 Societies,” 64.
[19] Berry, “Greens name non-MP as leader.”
[20] Audrey Young, “Choice of Fitzsimons' successor will show direction,” New Zealand Herald, 24 February, 2009, accessed 14 August, 2011, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=
10558308.
[21] The ‘anti-smacking debate’ concerned Bradford’s private members bill which came to be known colloquially and in the media as the ‘anti-smacking bill’. Bradford’s bill sought to amend Section 59 of the Crimes Act which removed the defence of ‘reasonable force’ for parents charged with abusing their children.
[22] Claire Trevett, “Greens elect Metiria Turei as new co-leader,” New Zealand Herald, 30 May, 2009, accessed 12 June, 2011, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10575491.
[23] Co-leader Dr Russel Norman has a PhD in Politics; Green MP Dr Kennedy Graham has a PhD in Law and was a Fulbright Scholar; Green candidate Holly Walker was a Rhodes Scholar and has a MPhil from Oxford; and Kevin Hague has a BSc in Atmospheric Physics.
[24] Berry, "Greens ponder how to exert growing muscle."
[25]Dave Armstrong, ‘How the Greens can stop people laughing at them,’ Dominion Post, 5 September 2011, accessed 6 September, 2011, http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/5563836/ How-the-Greens-can-stop-people-laughing-at-them.
[26] Adam Bennett, “Party steadily moving mainstream,” New Zealand Herald, 6 June, 2011, accessed 10 June, 2011, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10730509.
[27] Denis Welch, “The Age of the Carnivore,” Metro, September 2011, 50.
[28] “The Green Delusion” (Election pamphlet, 2005)
[29] Russel Norman, interviewed by Paul Holmes, Q+A, 18 September, 2011, accessed 19 September, 2011, http://tvnz.co.nz/q-and-a-news/nick-smith-russel-norman-transcript-4406071.
[30] Nikki MacDonald, “Green Growth,” Dominion Post, ‘Your Weekend’ supplement, 20 November, 2010, 8.
[31] Russel Norman, “A Clean Green Economy that works for everyone,” 2011 Green Party AGM speech, 4 June, 2011, accessed 28 July, 2011, http://www.greens.org.nz/speeches/clean-green-economy-works-everyone-russel-normans-speech-green-party-agm-2011.
[32] Welch, “The Age of the Carnivores,” 51.
[33]John Armstrong, “Green ‘wave’ shows party is serious,” New Zealand Herald, 22 September, 2011, accessed 22 September 2011, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10753471.
[34] Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, “Green Jobs Launch,” video, 21 September, 2011, accessed 21 September, 2011, http://www.greens.org.nz/video/green-jobs-launch.
[35]The full terms of this agreement can be found at: New Zealand Government, “The National-led Government,” 8 April, 2009, accessed 4 August, 2011, http://www.beehive.govt.nz/ feature/national-led-government.
[36] See: Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, “Greens negotiate landmark insulation programme,” press release, 28 May, 2009, accessed 4 August, 2011, http://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/greens-negotiate-landmark-insulation-programme.
[37] Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, “Independent Greens could support Labour, National ‘unlikely’,” press release, 5 June, 2011, accessed 6 June, 2011. http://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/independent-greens-could-support-labour-national-unlikely.
[38] “Greens could support Labour, National ‘unlikely’,” TVNZ News, June 5, 2011, accessed June 6, 2011, http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/greens-could-support-labour-national-unlikely-4206369.
[39] “Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei on National coalition deal,” video, 3News, 5 October, 2011, accessed 6 October, 2011, http://www.3news.co.nz/VIDEO-Green-Party-co-leader-Metiria-Turei-on-National-coalition-deal/tabid/419/articleID/228318/Default.aspx.
[40] Sue Bradford, “Greens step to the right,” blog post, Pundit, 7 June, 2011, accessed 10 June, 2011, http://pundit.co.nz/content/greens-step-to-the-right.
[41]Sue Bradford, “Greens step to the right.”
[42] Mair and Katz, "Changing Models of Party Organization and Party Democracy: The Emergence of the Cartel Party."
[43] Mair, "The Green Challenge and Political Competition: How Typical is the German Experience?," 111.
[44] Adam Bennett, “Green MP will quit if Greens join Nats in Govt,” New Zealand Herald, 10 October, 2011, accessed 10 October, 2011, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=1075 7899&ref=rss.
[45] Tim Bale and John Wilson, “The Greens,” in New Zealand Government and Politics, Fourth edition, ed. Raymond Miller (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2006), 397.
[46] NZPA, “Huge protest says no to mining on conservation land,” New Zealand Herald, 1 May, 2010, accessed 13 September, 2011, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10642083.
[47]New Zealand Government, “No land to be removed from Schedule 4,” press release, 20 July, 2010, accessed 13 September, 2011, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1007/S00295.htm.
[48] Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, “Greens celebrate victory for common sense,” press release, 20 July, 2010, accessed 13 September, 2011, http://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/greens-celebrate-victory-common-sense.
[49] This graph incorporates poll data from Roy Morgan Research, Herald Digipoll, 3 News Reid Research and ONE News Colmar Brunton between January and December 2010.
[50] Image source: “Election 2011,” Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, accessed 18th September, 2011, http://www.greens.org.nz/election.
[51] Kitschelt, The Logics of Party Formation: Ecological Politics in Belgium and West Germany, 22.
[52] Aggregate poll data can be found at: “Poll of Polls,” Pundit, accessed 13 October, 2011, http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/poll-of-polls/.
[53] “Goff: Leadership rumours just ‘flogging a dead horse’,” 3News, 30 August, 2011, accessed 14 September, 2011, http://www.3news.co.nz/Goff-Leadership-rumours-just-flogging-a-dead-horse/tabid/ 419/articleID/223998/Default.aspx. Also, Duncan Garner, “Goff falls further behind Key – poll,” 3News, 12 December, 2010, accessed 14 September, 2011, http://www.3news.co.nz/Goff-falls-further-behind-Key---poll/tabid/419/articleID/190496/Default.aspx.
