By Chris Trotter*
Chloe Swarbrick wants a revolution. Her “announcement speech” has been hailed as a “once in a generation” oratorical triumph. I wouldn’t go that far, but there’s no disputing that Swarbrick took full advantage of the media’s interest in her candidacy for the Greens’ co-leadership to lay her programmatic cards on the table.
“Conventional, incremental politics has failed to rise to the challenges we face”, Swarbrick declared, “those intertwined climate, inequality, biodiversity and housing crises.”
So far, so good left-wing boilerplate. But, it was in the next few sentences that the young MP’s revolutionary intent was revealed:
“What is possible in politics is only ever defined by the willingness of those in power. As Co-leader, I want to show everyone in this country the power running through their veins to choose our future. We cannot leave politics to the politicians.”
Opined the Green politician.
And it is here that the problems confronted by all revolutionaries begin – with those beguilingly inclusive words: “everyone in this country”.
There was a time and place – late-eighteenth century France, to be precise – when appealing to “everyone in this country” made a certain kind of sense.
When the King, supported by an aristocracy encompassing approximately 1% of the population, ruled over everybody else, most notably a rightless and impoverished peasantry comprising 90%-plus of the population, “everyone in this country” (who wasn’t a king or an aristocrat) had a strong and direct interest in transforming their society.
But that was more than 200 years ago. The power that runs through the veins of New Zealanders, today, does not, alas, run uniformly. Some Kiwis are better equipped to choose their futures than others. Indeed, there are hundreds-of-thousands of New Zealand citizens so bereft of cultural, social and economic capital that speechifying to them about choosing their futures could be seen as grossly insensitive.
Swarbrick is a highly intelligent person, with an impressive and oft-demonstrated capacity to marshal facts and figures in support of her arguments. It is strange, then, that her announcement speech largely fails to address the manifest power differentials in the society she is proposing to transform. Especially when she goes out of her way to preface her call for a grass-roots uprising with the eminently sensible – and accurate – statement:
“What is possible in politics is only ever defined by the willingness of those in power.”
Like the willingness of farmers to shoulder the not inconsiderable cost of cleaning-up their rivers and streams and reducing their greenhouse emissions.
Like the willingness of small business owners to pay a capital gains tax.
Like the willingness of big businesses to redistribute the lion’s share of corporate surpluses from their shareholders to their employees.
Like the willingness of landlords to shoulder the costs of upgrading their properties, and empowering their tenants.
Like the willingness of those whose salaries place them in the top quartile of income-earners to pay higher taxes.
Except, of course, the willingness of all the above groups to redefine politics in ways that not only make them poorer, but also undermine their ability to set the boundaries of acceptable change, is nil.
These New Zealand socio-economic interests are no more willing to surrender their power and privilege than were their British counterparts when the Labour Party membership elected a leader determined to govern “for the many, not the few”.
That was a powerful rhetorical flourish – adapted from the final verse of Percy Bysshe Shelly’s incendiary poem “The Masque of Anarchy”.) Too powerful, as it turned out.
Jeremy Corbyn’s greatest mistake (apart from his failure to back Brexit) was to give the ruling elites and their enablers advance warning that he was coming for their power, their purses, and their privilege. Corbyn’s political destruction is thus attributable to his naïve assumption that those who owned the system would sit idly by while he organised a revolution at the ballot box to take it from them.
Clearly, Swarbrick has not learned the lessons embedded in the depressing saga of Corbyn’s rise and fall.
“I will grow the Green movement to achieve tangible, real-world, people-powered change - as I have since I first signed up - but now, at even greater scale.”
That’s telling ‘em, Chloe!
“I will challenge this Government’s cruel agenda and communicate the imagination, potential, and the necessary hope to mobilise for the sustainable, inspiring and inclusive Aotearoa that I see reflected every day in our communities”
And that’s telling them even more!
“They” will not move immediately to remove the potential threat that is Chloe Swarbrick. Like the British ruling-elites, New Zealand’s defenders of the neoliberal status-quo will wait to see if the putative Green co-leader’s revolution at the ballot-box amounts to anything more than yet another middle-class firebrand’s pipe-dream.
There’s no denying that “they” have every reason to be sceptical. After all, Jim Anderton’s Alliance had promised something very similar 30 years ago. It’s unashamedly socialist component, the New Labour Party, had also set out to make its followers “local body members, councillors and mayors” They, too, promised “more [Alliance] MPs in Parliament and ultimately, our nation’s first [Alliance-led] Government.”
Didn’t happen. With the notable exception of Anderton’s proletarian redoubt of Sydenham, the Alliance did well (even, like Swarbrick, capturing Auckland Central) where, 30 years later, the Greens still do best. Those central-city electorates composed of university students and young professionals. Where it mattered, however, in the electorates of the poor and marginalised, the Alliance failed miserably. Against their most formidable competitors, Labour voters, and those who didn’t vote at all, Alliance candidates struggled to reclaim their deposits.
Just how steep a mountain Swarbrick has set herself to climb is evident in the votes received by Labour and the Greens in the electorates where citizens’ life choices are most seriously constrained. Let’s look at Mangere: Labour, 61.40%. Greens, 7.85%. Or, Mana: Labour, 62%, Greens, 9.8%.
It is always possible, of course, that Swarbrick, unlike Anderton, will succeed in heating the blood of enough New Zealanders to turn those stats around. That in 2025 there will be a Green tsunami that lifts unashamed insurgents into council chambers and mayoral offices all across New Zealand. That the polls will register a massive shift from Labour to Green and, month after month, confirm Swarbrick’s preferred prime minister status. It is possible that, against all the odds, her revolution at the ballot-box progresses from pipe-dream to probability.
If that is the case, however, then Swarbrick’s troubles will only just be getting started. Every weapon the Establishment possesses will be pointed in her direction, and every right-wing journalistic scalp-hunter will be powering-up his keyboard.
By the time the Powers That Be were through with Corbyn, working-class Brits were cursing his name. By the time our own elites are through with Chole Swarbrick, she’ll either be a broken political doll – or New Zealand’s first Green prime minister.
*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.
137 Comments
Ironically NZ’s Green Party’s presence in parliament largely comes down to just the name, the movement and its profile internationally. Yet that feature hardly makes itself known with this lot here. They fly false colours, they are a red wolf in a green sheep’s clothing. Mr Trotter is correct the electorate is on to that and as well the recent ruptures, white cis outburst, cry baby reveal a seething internal culture that might well be a root cause of the thieving downfall.
Most of whom are being fed disinformation on climate change - witness this year's determination to make everyone think that 27 degrees in summer is "extreme heat" and a sign of global warming. They don't know any better, they havent lived long enough to know that summers were actually hotter 20-30 years ago.
Yeah I don’t get that either. We either have heat warnings or an atmospheric river, and then it doesn’t rain, or extreme heat and it’s less than 30 degrees. I remember when it used to be like that for weeks, not just a couple of days. But, the environment is cyclical so it’s to be expected. There must be very few worthwhile stories if an average summers day gets a warning in the news….
OMG..do some reading lads ..basing your research on your memories is not very scientific.. Here are some facts for you both to ponder
New Zealand’s waters have been experiencing relentless marine heatwaves over recent years, causing cascading losses in mussel and kelp beds and driving tropical fish into normally colder climes.
Even through wintry lows and bracing south-westerly winds, surface temperatures around most of our coasts have been hovering well above average, keeping last month among our five warmest Julys on record.
And if our past proves a window to our future, the trend is one that’ll only worsen over coming decades and centuries.
I think this is a mistake young people make - sure lots of mess has been created but the assumption that its only the young who want to fix problems is incorrect
and this is an historical mistake - those seeking to protect the environment (think National parks or even marine reserves) are not only the young. Those planting trees here and protecting rivers have lots of grey hair. - and often lots of money
If you denigrate these people you do so at your peril and disadvantage
and CT also did precisely that in this article by naming a number of groups and saying that they have NIL interest in amending the status quo - its not a great way to influence people and especially those who have the resources to help
The Greens can't be a one policy party, people don't want to waste their only party vote on those. Almost 50% of NZ think cannabis should be legal yet the Legalise Cannabis party only got something like 0.5%. If we got 2 votes I would have voted for them, but I am not going to throw away my only vote on them. So if the Greens have to choose between left and right, the left is probably the best option.
Environmental protection is a left wing idea. The right wants less government intervention, less red tape and let the market take care of everything so people can make more money. See the current coalition agreement for proof. Their environmental policy is all about unwinding environmental protection.
It is a good analysis and Chloe is impressive. But I also think she is blind to her own failings and the gaps in her presentations. But then do not sell them short, extremist politicians have made big grounds against incumbent parties due to voter disenchantment.
the problem I have with Chloe, and other Green politicians is that their policies just won't work. they're too extreme and will destroy the country and the people who will bear that burden the most will be the ones she supposedly represents. Chloe could make this country a shining light in environmental sustainability, but to do that she will destroy the economy and have to make some very hard, distasteful decisions (population reduction) that will float like a lead balloon. But in the end what she and no one else is saying, even if that happens if the rest of the world doesn't change we are still screwed. Virtue signaling is pointless if we still die. For Chloe to succeed she will have to find a middle ground, and that may well lose her voters.
Agreed. Just two examples. The wilful abetting of the attempted entrenchment of three waters was a middle finger to accepted parliamentary procedure and democracy itself. Regardless of either the purpose or merit of a wealth tax if you read the Green’s’ proposal justifying the invasion of lawful citizens property on the grounds that the government is authorised to investigate benefit fraud. In so doing technically they categorise all New Zealanders as potential fraudsters. Really they are rather Orwellian at the base of everything aren’t they.
The mistake you make is in assuming that the Left want things to be better for their constituency. They don't. The poorer and worse off their voters are, the more they will vote for parties promising to give them free stuff. This is part of the plan, not an unintended consequence. Their only intention is to remain in power, not deliver change. Just look at the Ardern Govt - every opportunity in the world to make people better off and she left the country far worse off than before. Swarbrick will be exactly the same, using her position to make a name for herself before leaving to pursue million dollar opportunities in the private sector as a speaker/consultant and the people she leaves behind in her wake be damned.
After all, if everyone was feeling affluent and wealthy, they would start voting National in order to remain so. Cant have that.
Sorry, which major international green party runs on a platform on environmental policies only? Not the major German or Austrian parties which have some of the longest histories.
In NZ the Green Party (formerly Values Party) has always run on a platform that has included more than environmental issues. Likewise with some of their most prominent bills such as the "anti smacking" bill.
She may be a broken political doll before three years is up. I see a crashing green vote over the next few years. She is looking to take charge at a false high water mark (after a significant protest vote against Labour). A protest vote is no revolution. Their real support lies between 5-7% and with James Shaw now gone, it’s likely less. She has set herself up for a massive failure here with her talk of revolution.
Yes, how much support was "James Shaw". Or, in other words how many existing Green voters are more pragmatic/centre based in their preferences.
I suspect the revolution could work both ways. Many may be convinced to move towards Labour or even Nats to get away from the extreme (and not environmentally focused) policies.
You could have said the same thing about ACT 6 months ago!
One thing Chloe could achieve is more bargaining power with Labour. The more different they are to Labour, the more Labour would need to give up to form coalition. But that requires the left wing to get 50% of the vote to matter.
The skeletons in the closet that will invariably come out over the next 3-6 years that will sheet all of the blame for the poor economy (I agree with you that this will occur) back to the previous Labour govt. News today says that there is a 60,000 person waiting list to see a specialist? How could this happen ? Up 67% in a year, that’s a total disaster, will take a long time to unwind, and is completely Labours fault. More than likely directly related to the appalling management of the creation of Health NZ and the soon to be defunct Māori Health Authority. I do remember many people predicted exactly this.
Do you know if this is Public or does it include Private as well?
Just wondering as everyone goes on about the burden of Boomers on the health system. Most Boomers I know have Private Health Insurance. Yes, there still be some using Public as well but the numbers of people on Private now you would think that Public waiting lists would be coming down.
Must be due to staff/specialist shortages as well I would have thought???
I have private health insurance however spent a few days last week in the public hospital after being sent there by the after hours GP for an urgent unforeseen minor surgery.
It took a couple of days to be operated on & I have no complaints, there were a lot of people worse off than I (car accidents, gall bladder etc). I heard a few stories from the staff about people who treated ED as their GP though.
80% of staff appeared to be recent imports, the hospital specialists (eg surgeon, anesthetist, theatre) were flat out, working long 12hr shifts. It appeared that no non emergency ops were scheduled overnight in the weekend, not sure if this was due to lack / reluctance of specialists.
Aging population does not happen overnight. Terrible management of unnecessary mergers, removal of performance targets, introduction of racist selection processes and generally low motivation of staff as a result actually gets us to where we are now. That’s on Labour.
Not really. We have the same disaster in education, ironically foisted on us by the same minister, that being Hipkins. Different ministry, same numpty, same result. Nothing to do with population aging there, just incompetence. The disaster in education is going to be with us for decades as the current lot of illiterate kids enter working age. Education and Health are just obvious examples of the same problem. The statistics showing our education performance against our peers being the worst ever are not made up. I don’t think there is any dispute about that Labour made reality.
60,000 seems an awful lot to me, and as KH has let us know that’s just the number that have been waiting more than four months. So the 60,000 is not even that bad when the overall total is considered. What a screw up. That figure has to be managed be spare capacity too, it’s not as thought you can just focus on the 60k. There will be more being added to that list all the time.
They spent most of the money, a hardly inconsiderate amount, on a rearrangement of MoH headquarters while at the same time a pandemic was raging, and ill equipped and under resourced health workers suffered at the front line. And as Dr Shane Reti accurately described, all that was achieved was, same team different jerseys. At some point, given the black eyes that the MoH inflicted continually on the previous government, did they not realise that a great many of the problems being experienced at the coal face actually emanated from MoH Wellington.
Yep. The more that idiot Hipkins keeps referring to people as ‘non-Māori’ the more unelectable he and his crew will become. It’s becoming very evident that people simply don’t like being split into groups. He doesn’t seem to get it. The only thing he seems to have in common with the average Kiwi right now is that he likes sausage rolls, and most of his supporters (or former supporters as they case may be( can’t even afford them…thanks to the previous admintration.
Yep. Of course they will. The current crop have decided that pandering to Māori and other special interests is a way to success. That’s no longer true. Many of this support base have moved away and now support the likes of ACT and NZ first (the so called enemy). They need to dump their racist and divisive policies and move back to their base. The longer they insist on pandering to minorities the longer they will be in the wilderness. The public have had enough of those games as we saw at the last election.
How? We have a new government. In NZ we have governments that run typically for 6-9 years. 6 if they aren’t any good (like the last one, which should only have lasted for 3). This one will be 9 or possibly 12 years if they keep doing what people actually want. Chloe will be long gone before they get anywhere near the levers of power again. So she won’t be getting any wealth tax over the line. She can talk about it sure, that’s what greens do. All talk. Loud talk, it is the doing but they never do.
It's just Rent-A-Mob noise. The financial vandalism is about to come home to roost, Kiwis will not let Labour need the controls of power for a very very very long time.
We need to spend more on so much, but cannot even live currently within budget... Almost every portfolio needs massive spend
Thinking
Health (60k not even seen)
Police (leavinbg for aussie no way will they stop this)
Defense (cannot retain or recruit)
Waka Whateva (news story today needing billions)
KO (lets not even go there BILLIONS enquiry on now)
Ferries ( billions needed)
Rail (billions in WGTN alone)
5 Waters ( BILLIONS needed in WGTN ALONE)
Education ( maybe cheaper if kids do not turn up)
Justice ( we will need more prisons soon)
GOD ITS A MESS
They don't need more money. NZ already collects far more taxes than they did in 2018 when everything ran properly. They just need to reallocate it. For example, NZTA has been spending hundreds of millions of dollars in Christchurch digging up the roads to install speed humps in suburban areas to enforce the new 30 kmph speed limits. Meanwhile the potholes on main roads go unfixed. Replicate this misdirected spending in every Govt department, clean out the unproductive spending and get rid of the bureaucrats responsible for it, and you will end up with an efficient and functioning public service. The only problem is that it wont be that easy to get rid of it.
Maybe look to the imminent income tax changes in Australia
https://www.pm.gov.au/media/tax-cuts-help-australians-cost-living#:~:te…).
What non-taxable trusts ?
When one looks at the NZ vs AU tax rates (well, comparing to the imminent changes in the tax rates in AU), the break-even is a bit over $260k NZD. That is, with an income of less than $260k NZD, you will pay less tax in AU than NZ. As an example, if you earned $200k in NZ, your tax bill would be 29.1% of your income, whereas the same income in AU would result in 27.0% of your income. If you earn more than $260k, then NZ may result in a lower income tax.
So let's take another 30 or 40 years of neolib Nat or Lab main parties. Does anyone think that image is good? Add the identity politics we are determined to import, definitely not looking good.
Of course, while we talk about the significance of one leader, Helen, John, Jacinda, Chloe, we are missing the larger point. My view, perhaps also Chris's view, the current system is not working for those Mana voters, even though they are presently Labour loyal. That apparently incomprehensible voting is a feature of the USA and UK. Why do voters elect the poisonous? It is more than spin. My view, the polical class have abandoned their voters. Example, Jacinda and CGT.
Perhaps a leader such as Chloe can unite us to choose a better future than more of the same failed policies of this century?
And that must start local.
Cometh the hour? Wellington water, 25% rates rises in the Tron, any of the Auckland problems. Less hui, more doi?
My best wishes to Chloe, I hope she can make changes. We need something new.
The National Act NZF Coalition has made a massive political overplaying of their hand! They're too beholding to get on with the agenda of their donors. They should have let this first Waitangi Day slide before attacking the Treaty. Wow what a miscalculation....
Long three years boys.
They're donors will get shi*ty and the cracks will widen in the "cabinet" room. Luxon doesn't know how New Zealand ticks. He'll fall.
Ah No - be up front - and get on with it. Its called electoral honesty
You only have a limited time for change before some will get cold feet and stop for a cup of tea
and being sneaky and doing things mid term that you had no mandate for was Labour's tactic and that ended badly
They have scope to push harder too. I have heard a few people in the media mention that Iwi organisations don’t pay tax either. This should be on the list to be reversed…..and certainly before any future capital gain tax or wealth tax or whatever is even contemplated. We have two huge sources of taxation that are currently untapped, and those are criminal organisations and Iwi organisations. Iwi complain that the rest of the country doesn’t do enough for them. All boo hoo, start paying taxes like everyone else. At least the crims don’t complain….
"few people in the media mention that Iwi organisations don’t pay tax either."
I think this is because they register as a charitable trust so legitimately don't pay tax if they fulfill the requirements of the charitable trust Act.
The Charitable Trust act probably needs fixing.
Greenies like Swarbrick are basically saying from what I can hear - it's a poor society which makes wealth it's primary virtue. Look at the problems we have due to inequality. Have we changed as Kiwis that much not to see this. We don't have to be Aussies or Yanks.
I don’t think that there is more inequality. That is merely a catch cry. In the past people had more self respect, lived within their means and if they stuffed up, they accepted it and got on with it. Now we have a whole generation of people who have the internet and complain loudly about how the world is against them and they need everything now (and don’t want to pay of course - or work). You then have places like instagram that show the lavish lives of people that post on there, much of which is not true with photos doctored and the real life situation of those people posting is miles different from what is displayed. This creates jealously where it is not warranted and then this illusion of inequality. So, I would say that the environment is much the same as it used to be, except we have more technology, mores lies and more complaining. May advice would be to stop watching losers on social media. It’s bad for your health and well being.
Archives NZ: "the way we were" in 1959 (note ~40 minutes), rang a few bells
https://youtu.be/_BRnoIFC5I8?si=aEep9PTLQehTFVQA
Social media sure has created a lot of jealousy and envy not to mention massive problems like migration with people that think the USA will be a better life for them. Sure half of it is fake but its still fuelling massive social problems. People trying to make a living off social media has turned it into a nightmare.
Labour had 6 years to change things, and all they did was increase the number of people on benefits and needing public housing. If you are going to implement policies that result in more unemployed, more single parents, more homeless then don't be surprised that inequality increases. But again, back to my earlier point above, this is not an unintended consequence from a well meaning Govt, it is an intentional design to keep Left voters poor so they continue voting Left. The Ardern "Be Kind" refrain was not for us to be kind to each other but for us to be kind to Ardern while our standard of living is deliberately degraded.
What problems do we have due to inequality? All I see is a bunch of statistics that a race, or a gender is worse and that must be bad.
I for one want a certain level of inequality, I want to provide an advantage to my children. I want people who work hard to have an advantage, otherwise why work hard.
It is about a balance with allowing people to not be so disadvantaged that they cannot ever succeed while rewarding people for succeeding. Otherwise you end up with communism. All I hear from the left is inequality is bad.
For every politician that says they want equality I say: You first give up your salary to poor people so you are on the average wage.
That’s exactly right. To the left, words like inequality and racism are cheap words they use to con people into voting for them. The reality is people need to get educated and work hard to get ahead, not use excuses to blame other people. We have equal opportunities here. I say either use them or not. It’s a choice.
"Clearly, Swarbrick has not learned the lessons embedded in the depressing saga of Corbyn’s rise and fall".
Really!!
I wouldnt call Corbyn's fall a depressing saga - he wanted to turn the UK into a communist state (run by him of course) and everyone is better off without him in charge
and he got rolled by his socialist mates not those on the right
Fortunately if we end up in a situation where the Greens are able to strip productive people of their income and assets to give it to people who can't be bothered working or who see producing children as an income stream, then there is always Australia prepared to welcome us. What will NZ look like when the best and brightest have left the socialist shores of Aotearoa to pursue careers and businesses elsewhere?
Good analysis, Chloe does have the political X factor. By quiz, I am a 'Green' voter, however I have never voted them as in then end I feel the ideology doesn't fit the reality.
Like the article points out, who is willing to pay? Who wants to be the loser in the game of tax. Nobody!
Listen to yourselves. Right vs Left, he said she said. It’s not working. It never has. You all get yourselves into a lather at election time (I know, cheap entertainment), someone “wins” and we wait 3 or 6 years before they get chucked out and the other team gets another go. And on and on it has gone. It’s actually embarrassing that we put up with it. Very little is achieved, and what does get done, is never done properly.
Time to wipe the slate clean and begin a new system, and I have the answer. Abolish central government. Create 4 states for NZ and each state take care of itself. I know there’ll be details to sort out (foreign affairs, international trade, etc, etc) and I do have answers for some of that.
It’s time.
That has always been the pipe dream of those of us who live in the South Island. We'd be quite happy to cut the cable and let the North fend for itself. The only problem is that we'd have to build a bl***dy big wall to keep the rest of NZ out (except for those on tourist visas to Queenstown of course).
And the 1999 Justice referendum had over 90% support which Labour, academics, psychbabble 101 & the activist judiciary have wilfully spent the last 6 years massively reneging on
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_New_Zealand_justice_referendum#:~:….
Swarbrick is a highly intelligent person, with an impressive and oft-demonstrated capacity to marshal facts and figures in support of her arguments.
Rattling off numbers that nobody has access to does not make one intelligent (thinking fast, slow).
She talks very fast. It impresses some. Not all.
Lower house prices!
Free trade deal with the UK & EU, backing Kiwi exporters.
New Public Holiday (Matariki)
Record low 3.2% unemployment (lowest Māori unemployment rate on record.)
Smokefree New Zealand, introducing legislation to limit the sale of tobacco and nicotine products.
Winter Energy Payment.
might stop there for now as National probably will reverse the whole list
She will never be the PM. The majority of NZ voters are centrist and the Greens in their current format do not appeal to them generally.
Chloe herself needs to tone down her persona when being interviewed as a lot of us do not like being told what to do. Jacinda found that out during our lockdowns. For the record I was jabbed and boosted.
With respect to Chloe's Central Auckland voters I think it was Churchill who said "there's something wrong with the young if they're not liberal utopians when they're under thirty, and there's something wrong with them if they're not more pragmatic conservatives when they're over thirty.
What happens between is real life, work and responsibilities.
She doesn't want a revolution, she wants to stay relevant while in the opposition. There's a useful way to do that, collaborate with the government and structure reform so that their laws don't get turfed out when they lose in 6-9 years. Far easier to jump up and down and speak in slogans.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.