Greens at risk of losing ground in election in 2020
Ithink there is a good chance the Greens will struggle to be re-elected in 2020. Many of those who write about politics really like the Greens, but at the start of 2018, things do not look favourable to me.
Leader James Shaw has speculated that the party’s ‘‘natural level of support is about 10 or 11 per cent’’ of the vote. This seems to rest on the Greens’ 2011 and 2014 results of 11.06 and 10.7 per cent. But those were years Labour received less than 30 per cent. The Greens have never received more than 7 per cent in any election where Labour’s share exceeded 30 per cent.
In such elections, the Greens’ share has been 5.16 per cent in 1999, 7 in 2002, 5.3 in 2005, 6.72 in 2008 and 6.27 in 2017. This suggests its natural level of support is closer to 6 per cent, with a boost of four or five points when Labour does exceptionally poorly.
I don’t know anyone who thinks Labour will receive less than 30 per cent of the vote in 2020. To that, we can add the ‘‘unitydistinctiveness dilemma’’ that troubles all junior partners in government. As they become pressured to fall in line behind the senior partner, smaller parties tend to lose their distinctive identity in the minds of voters, leading to a diminished vote at the next election.
Through close alignment with the government of the day, the Greens risk losing ground in 2020. And assuming a starting point of around 6 per cent, they can’t afford that.
Of course, the only thing worse than losing distinctiveness is destabilising things through the assertion of distinctiveness. Then you get blamed for chaotic government. Voters punished NZ First and the Alliance for that in 1999 and 2002, respectively.
So small parties usually face a no-win scenario. But not always. And the Greens have pulled it off before. In 1999, Labour and the Alliance took office. The Greens were excluded from the coalition but kept it in power through votes for confidence and supply. In some ways, this is not so different from the party’s present relationship with Labour and NZ First (though it now has some ministers outside Cabinet).
Helen Clark could count on the Greens to keep her in office for that first term. In other matters, however, the Green Party remained an independent agent.
The Greens even staged a walkout of Parliament on May 23, 2002 – an election year. In the election, the party improved its share of the vote by almost 2 per cent, quite the achievement when you consider Labour also increased its share. Voters rewarded the party for sticking to its guns.
However, if the last few months have confirmed anything, it’s that the Greens are different now. Despite being excluded from Cabinet, the party’s chief aim seems to to be pleasing Labour. Under current conditions, that means appeasing NZ First.
We saw early signs of this when the Greens agreed to the sidelining of the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary, opposed by NZ First. Initially surprised by the move, the party eventually acquiesced, citing Treaty concerns. Which would be fair enough, had the Greens not previously supported the creation of the sanctuary by way of a member’s bill and voted for the previous government’s legislation on the matter.
Now it appears the party will do an about-face on the ‘‘wakajumping’’ bill pushed by Winston Peters. Until recently, the Greens had maintained a principled opposition to such laws, which undermine important constitutional norms, including parliamentary sovereignty. And, as former Green MP Keith Locke has pointed out, the party established its initial parliamentary presence by ‘‘partyhopping’’ from the Alliance in 1997.
The Greens are now ready to support the agreement between Labour and NZ First to adopt such a law.
It all brings to mind what James Shaw said in the wake of his party’s changing position on benefit sanctions, another NZ First-appeasing betrayal of principle: ‘‘Our policy is what the Government’s policy is. So now we’re in Government, we need to do what Government policy says.’’
It may be unrealistic to expect every political leader to be Winston Churchill all the time, but is it too much to ask for the fighting spirit of Neville Chamberlain?