Challenging the notion that the Greens are Left and the best—and only—solution to our environmental issues, with a special lens on Wellington's unique political landscape.
Thank you! Yes I have long argued the Greens need to be open to working with left and right. Historically for every William Morris socialist green there’s a Tolkien conservative green. In fact prior to the 60s most political environmentalists were right wing conservatives.
Marx actually specifically rejected the notion that the environment has any value except as a resource to exploit, hence the awful environmental record of most communist/socialist regimes.
Thanks for sharing these insights, Tom! The historical perspective you bring up is quite intriguing. It’s true that environmental stewardship has found advocates across the political spectrum, from William Morris to more conservative figures like Tolkien. Your point on Marx’s approach to nature and the subsequent environmental records of certain regimes is an important reminder of how economic theories influence policy and practice in diverse ways.
Totally! ‘Conservative’, ‘conservation’ - the common root is not accidental. It is a shared centring of valuing what is here and now, and matters, and that can easily be overlooked or minimised. Concern for those babies getting washed out with the bathwater. Marxian economics seems to me as centred around dark, satanic mills (labour theory of value, surplus value, historical materialism) as it is around class struggle (oppressor/oppressed, alienation and the inevitability of revolution). Mix and match the labels as one might, there does not appear to me to be a natural and fixed-for-all-time binding between Green and Left.
Great point, John. The etymological link between ‘conservative’ and ‘conservation’ underscores that shared foundational value of preserving what’s valuable, Id never thought of that. The nuances you touched upon regarding Marxian economics and its industrial focus bring depth to this discussion too. It highlights the complex intersections where environmental and economic priorities can sometimes clash or compete depending on ideology.
Yes it’s the materialistic approach that is the real issue. Both the neo liberal free marketeers and Marxists basically think human needs are entirely material. Small c conservatives recognise an inherent value in the everyday, in the human in the natural world. Some socialist traditions attempt to reconnect humans with the land via communitarianism.
Tom, I like your thoughts on the materialistic approach, they are thought-provoking. It’s interesting how different political philosophies perceive human needs—whether solely material or extending to more intrinsic, intangible values, and then the age old question of what values and who defines them. The ‘small c’ conservative appreciation for the inherent worth of everyday life and the natural world is a perspective often overlooked but valuable in broadening the environmental conversation.
I like your framing. In a way the neo-liberal and the Marxist views care fundamentally about GDP and the manner of it’s distribution across the number of people. This has a hard edge to it that I do not align with. “ an inherent value in the everyday, in the human in the natural world.” Yes.
Thanks for expanding on this, John. That hard-edged focus on GDP and its distribution, as you mentioned, often leaves little room for recognizing inherent values outside material wealth, and again what values, a question that I am currently very interest din given my research into this idea of social cohesion. It’s refreshing to see the idea of valuing the everyday and the natural world being brought into the conversation; it resonates deeply with broader environmental and social priorities.
This thinking is also what brought me to TOP as I began to feel that the Greens being the main environmental party meant we were polarising climate mitigation and we cant afford that issue to only be pursued half of the time by Gov, if that.
When I look at Britain I do wonder if their incredibly weak Green Party opens the door for the major parties to battle over green votes, and if by having any single party be it Greens or TOP that claim green politics means we undermine that process. I suppose the counter to that is the power minor parties can have in tail wagging the dog situations BUT that’s hardly consistent.
Thank you for sharing your perspective, E. Orange! Your point about the risk of polarizing climate action by associating it primarily with one party is spot on. The need for climate mitigation to be a continuous, non-partisan priority is crucial, as you noted. The comparison to Britain's political landscape adds an interesting angle; when major parties feel compelled to compete over the 'green' vote, it can drive broader and more consistent environmental action.
However, your mention of minor parties having disproportionate influence—while sometimes inconsistent—highlights the unique role smaller movements can play in pushing urgent issues up the agenda, and where the value of MMP is in NZ< if we just understood it a bit better, we might get more out of it. It's a delicate balance between ensuring environmental concerns are mainstreamed across all political spectrums and maintaining dedicated voices to keep that focus strong. This is a conversation that could greatly benefit from more exploration. What are your thoughts on how we might achieve this balance?
@oakmoss2 I respectfully push back on your 25% note … and I don’t doubt that you are correct in what you say. For myself though, at way over 40, I enjoy the lush tone of Natalia’s writing. It’s non-terseness. It has more of the flavour of an Atlantic piece, and would probably not make it past the Economist style guide of ‘simplify, then maximise’.
Hey John, thanks so much for the super kind words and for calling this piece my best yet—that means a lot! I love that you enjoy the “lush tone” and Atlantic-style depth (and yep, it’d probably flunk the Economist simplicity test).
Balancing detailed storytelling and brevity is tricky, so feedback like yours and oakmoss2’s really helps. Glad to know there’s room for some wordy passion pieces!
I subscribe to the Economist and to the Guardian. I concur with oakmoss2’s take that there is a snappy-crisp style that you could use, that is faster to skim and retain a couple of points of. I don’t think that that is naturally you though. I was going to put ‘passion’ in my comment, but didn’t because that word can be overused. Instead I might call your style ‘earnest’, ‘intelligent’, ‘clear’ (mostly) and definitely ‘good-hearted’.
My main question of the article and assumptions within it is; why do the Green party need to be in coalition with the right to enable environmental based policy? National are the largest and most center party of the coalition and purportedly have a group of MPs that claim to be teals. Why do they need to be in coalition with the Greens to enact green policy? National and Luxon have shown that environmental policy comes a distinct last in their list of priorities why would the Greens (who are governed by their members in terms of coalitions) ever want to enter into a coalition with them. If the 'right' want to be environmentalists they can, they don't need the Greens or 'the left'. I agree environmentalism isn't uniquely left wing but this government is showing the lack of concern that they have for localism and environmentalism and connecting these failings with the Greens comes across as odd.
Enjoyed reading it regardless but we don't need to portray 'the right' as having no agency of their own.
Thanks for your thoughtful questions, Henry. You raise an important point: the Greens certainly do not need to be in coalition with National or any other right-leaning party to enable environmental policy. However, discussing coalition dynamics brings up the reality that smaller parties often exert influence by leveraging their positions to push key policies forward, even within governments where their values don’t align perfectly with the leading party's agenda. I think it was a big mistake to say they wouldn't work with national, and I'm happy to expand on that if you keen to hear my two cents.
Your point about National and its MPs having the potential to champion environmentalism independently is crucial, and I also recent them for not doing that. The challenge, as you pointed out, lies in prioritization and action. When those who identify as 'teals' or hold conservationist values don’t step forward to lead those efforts, it raises questions about what could incentivize that shift. I’m curious to hear your thoughts on how National could be encouraged or pressured into prioritizing environmental policies on their own terms.
Why would National go into coalition with the Greens over ACT, it just makes no sense. Again, when we bring these ideas up we have to look at how the parties are organised. The Green membership is very unlikely to go into coalition with National, the Green party is not just its MPs.
How can the Greens be more open to a coalition when they rely on their membership to approve it? Their membership is consistently further to the left than the parliamentary Party. Interested to hear your thoughts but it just makes no sense to me how that coalition would work in reality, in theory it sounds nice.
I think you are correct and I think this relates to Magpie’s point that “ The Greens are no longer an environmental party, they are a social party.” Those grassroots identify Left I think, more than they identify Green. I left Ecology Action eventually. I was an engineering student and the people - who I enjoyed - were committed to a raft of other issues (apartheid, Bastion Point, you name it) that I found it exhausting to talk Green with. Their Green was imbued with a lot of non-Green. Noting that it took the coalition all those weeks to thrash out an agreement, if I was National I would approach the present-day Greens only if the other parties were Martians who wanted to invade earth and eat humans.
Yip I agree. Personally I think that MPs are motivated by their ability to accrue political power with their party structure. This means that if you aren't already in cabinet or upper leadership of the party you want to be there so you're very unlikely to challenge the decisions and policies of the leadership. Seeing as National currently has quite a conservative leadership (Nicola Willis' fiscal conservatism, Simeon Brown social conconservatism, Simon Watts unwilling to put forward legitimate climate policy) this then shapes the lower ranks of MPs who see themselves attaining those positions in the future. I don't see National under its current leadership taking the stance that's needed to address our environmental and climate change challenges.
Yeah. I think that there is a demonstrated pragmatism in NZ First and ACT. Even where the coalition partners have to hold their collective noses at each other’s stench, the result does in fact include a dog-wagging-tail of the flavours of the smaller parties. I think the ideological purity factor in the Green Left, that gets in the way of greater Green engagement with the levers of power, comes from the Left aspect, not the Green one.
John, your point about coalition dynamics and the influence of smaller parties is well said and one I support wholeheartedly. It does seem that the unique influence of minor parties in MMP can push larger coalition partners to adopt policies they otherwise wouldn’t. However, as you mentioned, ideological purity can be both an asset and a hurdle, depending on the context. And I think in this case it is getting in the way of more creative flexible and effective political strategies.
National campaigned on being in a coalition with Act, how a three party coalition including the Greens would work is beyond me. The point is National, if they chose to, could uphold environmentalist principles that align with small c conservatism. Take the Key government protecting the haurakiri gulf as an example. They've chosen to forgo the small c conservatism environmentalist stance, that's a decision they've made, I don't understand why their decisions should be linked with theoretical realities of a National Green coalition, that was never happening.
Henry, you highlight an essential observation—National’s track record often shows a lack of prioritization when it comes to environmental issues. While the theoretical value of a coalition with the Greens might stir debate, the reality is that National does have the agency and capability to uphold environmentalist principles independently, as evidenced by past measures like protecting the Hauraki Gulf. The conversation here isn’t to excuse or shift responsibility but to consider why the alignment between parties matters and how it influences policy outcomes. Your call for holding larger parties accountable for their environmental policies stands out as an important aspect of this dialogue.
Magpie, that’s an interesting take, and one I think is totally worth unpacking. I think the Greens made a mistake by not wanting to work with national, like I said to Henry above. I think if the Greens would have been more strategic, and shown willingness to collaborate would have change the course of action and we would have a very different government today. But I didn't see the Grees or National have the vision or courage to do that which was disappointing. Such strategic moves could either broaden the dialogue or compromise core values—an inherent tension in coalition-building.
“why do the Green party need to be in coalition with the right to enable environmental based policy?” Because individual MPs get dissolved in a larger party that is trying to satisfice multiple constituencies. But where that larger party needs coalition partners, the same MPs with the same primary (Green) concern, can stay focused and have much greater effect.
John, your idea of coalition dynamics and the focus smaller parties can maintain within such structures is well-made. Smaller parties often serve as a concentrated voice for their core issues, which can amplify their influence in policy discussions, which is way I think they need to be extra proactive in being willing to work with any mayor party and their priority should be to end up in Cabinet, where the real impact happens. This can make coalition arrangements a critical way to achieve specific policy goals, even if they come with compromises.
I don't think that addresses the point I was making. Why when we think of upholding the natural environment and principles do we only think of the Greens? Sure that's part of their core beliefs and pillars but that does not mean that National, as the largest (and theoretically most powerful party in the coalition), is unable to protect the environment. National does not need the Greens to protect the environment they are capable of doing it themselves but they consistently put the environment last in near on all of their decisions. That is on them, not the Greens.
Henry, I completely agree with your point about National not needing the Greens to protect the environment. That’s an important perspective to add. The reason I focused on the Greens in this article is because while National receives plenty of scrutiny, the criticism often feels unbalanced. Few are questioning why the Greens have moved away from their core environmental values or why they have positioned themselves in a way that limits their ability to enact real influence from a political and legislative standpoint. Shining a light on this helps explore not just what the major parties are doing but also how minor parties can better navigate their strategies to make a more substantial impact.
Henry I do get that point: National have power and they don’t use it to put Green issues front and centre. Their bad. I was looking at the other issue you raised, which I think is also important. There are good reasons why Green concerns would be better met in a practical way by pragmatic politicians.
Finally someone saying this! The Greens are no longer an environmental party, they are a social party. Which is fine, but maybe don't call yourselves the Greens any more, and allow room for an actual Green party, whichever political bent it comes from.
Many overseas parties are blue/green (Teal) and there is no hint of something similar here.
Thanks for your work, I'm finding it very thought provoking.
Hi Magpie, thanks so much for your comment and for engaging with the piece! You nailed one of the main points I wanted to raise—it's a big shift when an environmental party becomes more of a social party, and it really opens up that question: Is there space for a true "Green" party here, whatever its political lean? The overseas examples of blue/green (Teal) parties show that it’s possible, and it’s fascinating to imagine what that could look like in Aotearoa.
Thanks for reading and sharing your perspective, it really helps :)
Heya, Thanks so much for your thoughtful and constructive feedback—made me smile! Your kind words and insight are much appreciated (and wow, seven million views? I might need some pointers from you on keeping it concise!).
I'll take your suggestion to heart and work on giving those descriptives a little trim for the sake of our overstimulated, under-caffeinated brains. I want my pieces to feel like engaging conversations, not marathon monologues.
And I couldn't agree more—Wellington could use a bit more critical reflection when it comes to green politics.
Also, big respect for the work you do on social issues, especially with those rent numbers. Thank you for your encouragement and your humor—it’s readers like you who make this all worth it. Promise to keep things tighter next time. Stay tuned!
Thanks for weighing in. I can understand why some might view certain aspects of politics through a lens of underlying problematic agendas like class or racial divides. However, I think it's important to acknowledge that the Right, is not that. There is racism, xenophobia and class war on the Left as well. This is one big myth that has gathered momentum, and I feel very passionate about balancing. I think there is a genuine commitment to environmental stewardship that can exists across the political spectrum. The challenge lies in ensuring that environmental policies are inclusive and do not inadvertently reinforce existing social inequities
Then one productive question might be, how can effective contact be made across the divide? If the right needed a coalition partner in order to be in power, then being such a partner would be one way. It might be that I could be located on the right myself, although I see myself as a conservative. I was the secretary of Ecology Action in the late ‘70s ( U of A green group at the time) and I don’t think my green attitude has changed.
John, I appreciate you sharing your background and your consistent commitment to environmental issues over the years. Your question about making effective contact across divides is crucial, and I have a few thoughts, that might be a good idea for another Less Certain article, do you have any views? Your experience as a conservative with a long history in green activism underscores that these values don’t belong to one side of the spectrum.
Building coalitions, as you suggest, could indeed be a way forward. It challenges the narrative that environmental action must align exclusively with certain political identities. How do you think we can encourage more people to see environmentalism not as a partisan issue but as a shared responsibility that benefits everyone?
Elon Musk supports Trump with million dollar cheques, but bought Tesla to jump start electric transport. Bill Gates supports multiple energy initiatives - along with health initiatives of course. I think you are correct that it would be a good thing if bridges could be built between passionate people on the Left and these demons with the blood of the oppressed dripping from their fangs. How to make this happen though - buggered if I know sport.
Thank you! Yes I have long argued the Greens need to be open to working with left and right. Historically for every William Morris socialist green there’s a Tolkien conservative green. In fact prior to the 60s most political environmentalists were right wing conservatives.
Marx actually specifically rejected the notion that the environment has any value except as a resource to exploit, hence the awful environmental record of most communist/socialist regimes.
Thanks for sharing these insights, Tom! The historical perspective you bring up is quite intriguing. It’s true that environmental stewardship has found advocates across the political spectrum, from William Morris to more conservative figures like Tolkien. Your point on Marx’s approach to nature and the subsequent environmental records of certain regimes is an important reminder of how economic theories influence policy and practice in diverse ways.
Totally! ‘Conservative’, ‘conservation’ - the common root is not accidental. It is a shared centring of valuing what is here and now, and matters, and that can easily be overlooked or minimised. Concern for those babies getting washed out with the bathwater. Marxian economics seems to me as centred around dark, satanic mills (labour theory of value, surplus value, historical materialism) as it is around class struggle (oppressor/oppressed, alienation and the inevitability of revolution). Mix and match the labels as one might, there does not appear to me to be a natural and fixed-for-all-time binding between Green and Left.
Great point, John. The etymological link between ‘conservative’ and ‘conservation’ underscores that shared foundational value of preserving what’s valuable, Id never thought of that. The nuances you touched upon regarding Marxian economics and its industrial focus bring depth to this discussion too. It highlights the complex intersections where environmental and economic priorities can sometimes clash or compete depending on ideology.
Yes it’s the materialistic approach that is the real issue. Both the neo liberal free marketeers and Marxists basically think human needs are entirely material. Small c conservatives recognise an inherent value in the everyday, in the human in the natural world. Some socialist traditions attempt to reconnect humans with the land via communitarianism.
Tom, I like your thoughts on the materialistic approach, they are thought-provoking. It’s interesting how different political philosophies perceive human needs—whether solely material or extending to more intrinsic, intangible values, and then the age old question of what values and who defines them. The ‘small c’ conservative appreciation for the inherent worth of everyday life and the natural world is a perspective often overlooked but valuable in broadening the environmental conversation.
I like your framing. In a way the neo-liberal and the Marxist views care fundamentally about GDP and the manner of it’s distribution across the number of people. This has a hard edge to it that I do not align with. “ an inherent value in the everyday, in the human in the natural world.” Yes.
Thanks for expanding on this, John. That hard-edged focus on GDP and its distribution, as you mentioned, often leaves little room for recognizing inherent values outside material wealth, and again what values, a question that I am currently very interest din given my research into this idea of social cohesion. It’s refreshing to see the idea of valuing the everyday and the natural world being brought into the conversation; it resonates deeply with broader environmental and social priorities.
This thinking is also what brought me to TOP as I began to feel that the Greens being the main environmental party meant we were polarising climate mitigation and we cant afford that issue to only be pursued half of the time by Gov, if that.
When I look at Britain I do wonder if their incredibly weak Green Party opens the door for the major parties to battle over green votes, and if by having any single party be it Greens or TOP that claim green politics means we undermine that process. I suppose the counter to that is the power minor parties can have in tail wagging the dog situations BUT that’s hardly consistent.
Thank you for sharing your perspective, E. Orange! Your point about the risk of polarizing climate action by associating it primarily with one party is spot on. The need for climate mitigation to be a continuous, non-partisan priority is crucial, as you noted. The comparison to Britain's political landscape adds an interesting angle; when major parties feel compelled to compete over the 'green' vote, it can drive broader and more consistent environmental action.
However, your mention of minor parties having disproportionate influence—while sometimes inconsistent—highlights the unique role smaller movements can play in pushing urgent issues up the agenda, and where the value of MMP is in NZ< if we just understood it a bit better, we might get more out of it. It's a delicate balance between ensuring environmental concerns are mainstreamed across all political spectrums and maintaining dedicated voices to keep that focus strong. This is a conversation that could greatly benefit from more exploration. What are your thoughts on how we might achieve this balance?
A terrific piece. Maybe your best yet.
@oakmoss2 I respectfully push back on your 25% note … and I don’t doubt that you are correct in what you say. For myself though, at way over 40, I enjoy the lush tone of Natalia’s writing. It’s non-terseness. It has more of the flavour of an Atlantic piece, and would probably not make it past the Economist style guide of ‘simplify, then maximise’.
Hey John, thanks so much for the super kind words and for calling this piece my best yet—that means a lot! I love that you enjoy the “lush tone” and Atlantic-style depth (and yep, it’d probably flunk the Economist simplicity test).
Balancing detailed storytelling and brevity is tricky, so feedback like yours and oakmoss2’s really helps. Glad to know there’s room for some wordy passion pieces!
I subscribe to the Economist and to the Guardian. I concur with oakmoss2’s take that there is a snappy-crisp style that you could use, that is faster to skim and retain a couple of points of. I don’t think that that is naturally you though. I was going to put ‘passion’ in my comment, but didn’t because that word can be overused. Instead I might call your style ‘earnest’, ‘intelligent’, ‘clear’ (mostly) and definitely ‘good-hearted’.
My main question of the article and assumptions within it is; why do the Green party need to be in coalition with the right to enable environmental based policy? National are the largest and most center party of the coalition and purportedly have a group of MPs that claim to be teals. Why do they need to be in coalition with the Greens to enact green policy? National and Luxon have shown that environmental policy comes a distinct last in their list of priorities why would the Greens (who are governed by their members in terms of coalitions) ever want to enter into a coalition with them. If the 'right' want to be environmentalists they can, they don't need the Greens or 'the left'. I agree environmentalism isn't uniquely left wing but this government is showing the lack of concern that they have for localism and environmentalism and connecting these failings with the Greens comes across as odd.
Enjoyed reading it regardless but we don't need to portray 'the right' as having no agency of their own.
Thanks for your thoughtful questions, Henry. You raise an important point: the Greens certainly do not need to be in coalition with National or any other right-leaning party to enable environmental policy. However, discussing coalition dynamics brings up the reality that smaller parties often exert influence by leveraging their positions to push key policies forward, even within governments where their values don’t align perfectly with the leading party's agenda. I think it was a big mistake to say they wouldn't work with national, and I'm happy to expand on that if you keen to hear my two cents.
Your point about National and its MPs having the potential to champion environmentalism independently is crucial, and I also recent them for not doing that. The challenge, as you pointed out, lies in prioritization and action. When those who identify as 'teals' or hold conservationist values don’t step forward to lead those efforts, it raises questions about what could incentivize that shift. I’m curious to hear your thoughts on how National could be encouraged or pressured into prioritizing environmental policies on their own terms.
Why would National go into coalition with the Greens over ACT, it just makes no sense. Again, when we bring these ideas up we have to look at how the parties are organised. The Green membership is very unlikely to go into coalition with National, the Green party is not just its MPs.
How can the Greens be more open to a coalition when they rely on their membership to approve it? Their membership is consistently further to the left than the parliamentary Party. Interested to hear your thoughts but it just makes no sense to me how that coalition would work in reality, in theory it sounds nice.
I think you are correct and I think this relates to Magpie’s point that “ The Greens are no longer an environmental party, they are a social party.” Those grassroots identify Left I think, more than they identify Green. I left Ecology Action eventually. I was an engineering student and the people - who I enjoyed - were committed to a raft of other issues (apartheid, Bastion Point, you name it) that I found it exhausting to talk Green with. Their Green was imbued with a lot of non-Green. Noting that it took the coalition all those weeks to thrash out an agreement, if I was National I would approach the present-day Greens only if the other parties were Martians who wanted to invade earth and eat humans.
Yip I agree. Personally I think that MPs are motivated by their ability to accrue political power with their party structure. This means that if you aren't already in cabinet or upper leadership of the party you want to be there so you're very unlikely to challenge the decisions and policies of the leadership. Seeing as National currently has quite a conservative leadership (Nicola Willis' fiscal conservatism, Simeon Brown social conconservatism, Simon Watts unwilling to put forward legitimate climate policy) this then shapes the lower ranks of MPs who see themselves attaining those positions in the future. I don't see National under its current leadership taking the stance that's needed to address our environmental and climate change challenges.
Perhaps if National thought the Greens would work with them, they might offer concessions to win their confidence?
Yeah. I think that there is a demonstrated pragmatism in NZ First and ACT. Even where the coalition partners have to hold their collective noses at each other’s stench, the result does in fact include a dog-wagging-tail of the flavours of the smaller parties. I think the ideological purity factor in the Green Left, that gets in the way of greater Green engagement with the levers of power, comes from the Left aspect, not the Green one.
John, your point about coalition dynamics and the influence of smaller parties is well said and one I support wholeheartedly. It does seem that the unique influence of minor parties in MMP can push larger coalition partners to adopt policies they otherwise wouldn’t. However, as you mentioned, ideological purity can be both an asset and a hurdle, depending on the context. And I think in this case it is getting in the way of more creative flexible and effective political strategies.
National campaigned on being in a coalition with Act, how a three party coalition including the Greens would work is beyond me. The point is National, if they chose to, could uphold environmentalist principles that align with small c conservatism. Take the Key government protecting the haurakiri gulf as an example. They've chosen to forgo the small c conservatism environmentalist stance, that's a decision they've made, I don't understand why their decisions should be linked with theoretical realities of a National Green coalition, that was never happening.
Henry, you highlight an essential observation—National’s track record often shows a lack of prioritization when it comes to environmental issues. While the theoretical value of a coalition with the Greens might stir debate, the reality is that National does have the agency and capability to uphold environmentalist principles independently, as evidenced by past measures like protecting the Hauraki Gulf. The conversation here isn’t to excuse or shift responsibility but to consider why the alignment between parties matters and how it influences policy outcomes. Your call for holding larger parties accountable for their environmental policies stands out as an important aspect of this dialogue.
Magpie, that’s an interesting take, and one I think is totally worth unpacking. I think the Greens made a mistake by not wanting to work with national, like I said to Henry above. I think if the Greens would have been more strategic, and shown willingness to collaborate would have change the course of action and we would have a very different government today. But I didn't see the Grees or National have the vision or courage to do that which was disappointing. Such strategic moves could either broaden the dialogue or compromise core values—an inherent tension in coalition-building.
“why do the Green party need to be in coalition with the right to enable environmental based policy?” Because individual MPs get dissolved in a larger party that is trying to satisfice multiple constituencies. But where that larger party needs coalition partners, the same MPs with the same primary (Green) concern, can stay focused and have much greater effect.
John, your idea of coalition dynamics and the focus smaller parties can maintain within such structures is well-made. Smaller parties often serve as a concentrated voice for their core issues, which can amplify their influence in policy discussions, which is way I think they need to be extra proactive in being willing to work with any mayor party and their priority should be to end up in Cabinet, where the real impact happens. This can make coalition arrangements a critical way to achieve specific policy goals, even if they come with compromises.
I don't think that addresses the point I was making. Why when we think of upholding the natural environment and principles do we only think of the Greens? Sure that's part of their core beliefs and pillars but that does not mean that National, as the largest (and theoretically most powerful party in the coalition), is unable to protect the environment. National does not need the Greens to protect the environment they are capable of doing it themselves but they consistently put the environment last in near on all of their decisions. That is on them, not the Greens.
Henry, I completely agree with your point about National not needing the Greens to protect the environment. That’s an important perspective to add. The reason I focused on the Greens in this article is because while National receives plenty of scrutiny, the criticism often feels unbalanced. Few are questioning why the Greens have moved away from their core environmental values or why they have positioned themselves in a way that limits their ability to enact real influence from a political and legislative standpoint. Shining a light on this helps explore not just what the major parties are doing but also how minor parties can better navigate their strategies to make a more substantial impact.
Henry I do get that point: National have power and they don’t use it to put Green issues front and centre. Their bad. I was looking at the other issue you raised, which I think is also important. There are good reasons why Green concerns would be better met in a practical way by pragmatic politicians.
At the moment, the minor parties of ACT and NZ First (the tail) are wagging the National party (Dog) so the Greens could do similar.
Finally someone saying this! The Greens are no longer an environmental party, they are a social party. Which is fine, but maybe don't call yourselves the Greens any more, and allow room for an actual Green party, whichever political bent it comes from.
Many overseas parties are blue/green (Teal) and there is no hint of something similar here.
Thanks for your work, I'm finding it very thought provoking.
Hi Magpie, thanks so much for your comment and for engaging with the piece! You nailed one of the main points I wanted to raise—it's a big shift when an environmental party becomes more of a social party, and it really opens up that question: Is there space for a true "Green" party here, whatever its political lean? The overseas examples of blue/green (Teal) parties show that it’s possible, and it’s fascinating to imagine what that could look like in Aotearoa.
Thanks for reading and sharing your perspective, it really helps :)
Natalia
I love your commentaries.
The Green reflection perfect.
Please reduce your dialogue to 25% of it's current form.
You will experience a higher retention and real readership ratio.
Keep it simple.
I agree with much you say but am fatigued by the plethora of descriptives.
This is positive feedback.
I work on about forty essential social issues on Instagram. View count over seven million.
Subconscious activation is KEY to stimulating neural networks in the over stressed brain of viewers under forty.
I live in Wellington and often wonder why Green cannot mediate with centrists and the right, like in the countries you have lived.
I would easily pay for your thoughts but have a 60% rent income ration in the largest CHP in NZ...
Thank you WE need more CREATIVE thinkers like YOU.
Heya, Thanks so much for your thoughtful and constructive feedback—made me smile! Your kind words and insight are much appreciated (and wow, seven million views? I might need some pointers from you on keeping it concise!).
I'll take your suggestion to heart and work on giving those descriptives a little trim for the sake of our overstimulated, under-caffeinated brains. I want my pieces to feel like engaging conversations, not marathon monologues.
And I couldn't agree more—Wellington could use a bit more critical reflection when it comes to green politics.
Also, big respect for the work you do on social issues, especially with those rent numbers. Thank you for your encouragement and your humor—it’s readers like you who make this all worth it. Promise to keep things tighter next time. Stay tuned!
Nat
You took that comment well Natalia and I didn’t find your writing long at all. We live in a Tik Tok generation I guess. Keep up the good work.
The right will only embrace environmental protection when its an excuse to justify racism, xenophobia and class war
Thanks for weighing in. I can understand why some might view certain aspects of politics through a lens of underlying problematic agendas like class or racial divides. However, I think it's important to acknowledge that the Right, is not that. There is racism, xenophobia and class war on the Left as well. This is one big myth that has gathered momentum, and I feel very passionate about balancing. I think there is a genuine commitment to environmental stewardship that can exists across the political spectrum. The challenge lies in ensuring that environmental policies are inclusive and do not inadvertently reinforce existing social inequities
Then one productive question might be, how can effective contact be made across the divide? If the right needed a coalition partner in order to be in power, then being such a partner would be one way. It might be that I could be located on the right myself, although I see myself as a conservative. I was the secretary of Ecology Action in the late ‘70s ( U of A green group at the time) and I don’t think my green attitude has changed.
John, I appreciate you sharing your background and your consistent commitment to environmental issues over the years. Your question about making effective contact across divides is crucial, and I have a few thoughts, that might be a good idea for another Less Certain article, do you have any views? Your experience as a conservative with a long history in green activism underscores that these values don’t belong to one side of the spectrum.
Building coalitions, as you suggest, could indeed be a way forward. It challenges the narrative that environmental action must align exclusively with certain political identities. How do you think we can encourage more people to see environmentalism not as a partisan issue but as a shared responsibility that benefits everyone?
Elon Musk supports Trump with million dollar cheques, but bought Tesla to jump start electric transport. Bill Gates supports multiple energy initiatives - along with health initiatives of course. I think you are correct that it would be a good thing if bridges could be built between passionate people on the Left and these demons with the blood of the oppressed dripping from their fangs. How to make this happen though - buggered if I know sport.