There is no room for a bluegreen party

In an ideal world, the Green Party would not need to exist. All parties would be concerned with the planet, and any party that attempted to claim a monopoly on the issue would be tarred and feathered. But we do not live in an ideal world.

Environmental concern is uneven, and parties that stand for the environment need to stand for other issues too. Thus, we have the Greens, a left wing party united by their love of protection (social and environmental), and their fight against exploitation (social and environmental). But lately there have been calls for a new bluegreen party.

Right wing people also care about the planet, and smart parties should respond to this concern. Some on the left might disagree that such concerns exist, but they do. The best source of data at present is the 2011 New Zealand Electoral Survey, which reveals 23.7% of people who are more conservative than the national mean care more about the environment than the economy.

The question is what is to be done with that support? Should a green person support the existence of a bluegreen party, support the ‘greening’ of right wing parties, or try to shoehorn all green-leaning voters into the Greens?

Bluegreen parties have not historically fared well in New Zealand. We’ve had two bluegreen parties; the Progressive Greens and the Outdoor Recreation party. The former split from the Greens in 1995 and got 0.26% in the 1996 election, while the latter got 1.28% in 2002 and later aligned with the United Future party.

National, United Future and the Conservatives all express concerns for the planet, with varying levels of sincerity. National claims to have a faction called the Bluegreens. John Key’s election year biography even gives a nod to the faction, claiming Key “often has to arbitrate on disagreements, particularly between the economic and environmental teams” (p. 157). Whether or not this tension is real is irrelevant. The fact that National feels the need to claim it is real says something. They believe the concern exists, and are responding rationally.

Screenshot 2014-10-04 14.43.36

The Conservatives have a definite green streak, although it’s inconsistent. I know this because I posed as the archetypical bluegreen bloke on their ‘Ask Colin’ page (see below), and hammered on the conservative appeal of, well, conserving stuff. United Future have an even stronger green streak.

Screenshot 2014-10-04 15.05.14

I’m not convinced that there is space for a bluegreen party in New Zealand. At least 5% of voters need to reliably vote bluegreen for such a party to survive. Many political scientists think green issues are ‘post-materialist’ (or nice-to-have once material concerns are sorted). If this is the case, bluegreen votes may not be solid enough or large enough to reliably elect a bluegreen party when material concerns are of greater concern (like in a recession). Between soft bluegreen support, the Greens’ attempts to get bluegreen support, and National, United Future and Conservatives pitching for the vote, there’s not really the space.

I suspect that as environmental concern becomes more mainstream National and/or the Conservatives will rationally respond to (blue)green values of their voters. Although this sort of ‘greening’ of the centre is hardly radical and is probably too-little-too-late for climate change, it’s a net gain for green politics.

There is a strategic left wing argument for a bluegreen party on the grounds that it could splinter the Right, act as a wedge issue, and promote green issues. But that is more hypothetical than realistic.

In either case, I think the Left can help with the ‘greening’ of the centre by promoting non-left green voices like Gareth Morgan and organisations like Fish and Game New Zealand. They might not vote for us, they can help shift the Right towards greener thinking.


One thought on “There is no room for a bluegreen party

  1. Well-reasoned. Persuasive. But consider: Gareth Morgan researched climate science before co-authoring his book about global warming. Rare to find a capitalist with so much street-cred, huh? I even bought my own copy after reading it as a library book because he did such a good job. A physics grad once upon a time, I handle the alarmist/denier interface by reading both sides & developing an integral overview. Exactly what he did.

    I saw Lucy Lawless interviewed on the tv news to comment on his call for a blue-green political party & she declared that she agreed with him that there’s a need. A year earlier she showed up sitting next to Russel Norman at the Green Party annual conference. My reading therefore is that they are articulating a sector of public opinion.

    James Shaw told us recently that post-election polling revealed 28% of voters had considered voting green. Since the final green vote was nearly 11%, 17% of the electorate are potential green voters. The final vote for Labour was so low that we have little reason to assume many went there. Say 3% did. Comparison of campaign polls with the election result suggests 3% switched to NZFirst. That leaves 11%. Seems to me these folk must have voted National, eh? Don’t you think that means the size of the blue-green vote is around 11%? That said, we mustn’t forget that the Progressive Greens presumed a similar scenario in 1996 and died a swift death after only getting 0.25%…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s