@strypey

Your thinking is far too binary:

*Labour deserves to lose to Greens and become the junior coalition partner in the next government.

@jeremy_pm
> Labour deserves to lose to Greens

We can all dream. In 1996 I really thought the Cannabis party would get 5%. In 2014 I thought the Internet MANA alliance would get 5%. And sure I'd love to think the Greens could leapfrog Labour in 2026.

Never say never. But the polling trend for 2026 is *not* looking promising.

I do agree with you both (and Chlöe) that this is the long game now. Labour are a spent force, hamstrung by a neoliberal rump they can't seem to shake off.

@lightweight

@lightweight @strypey

100%

https://youtu.be/09f8LEPvDPk

(1/2)

@lightweight @jeremy_pm All I can say to that is, good luck. I'll be happy if that surge in UK Greens polling translates into winning seats in an FPP election. I'd be thrilled if the same Green surge happened here. But I see little sign of that so far, and I'm not holding my breath.

@strypey I generally agree with you that there's little sign of a Green surge in New Zealand right now. We're holding up well, as we have been for years, but Labour can offer warmed-over neoliberal nonsense and still rely on 2-3 times the votes.

However… I also think this isn't anything major we're doing wrong, just a general complacency in our society fed by pervasive denialist propaganda. You do what you can in that environment, but the main thing is to stay true to your principles, remain a credible institution, and be ready to take advantage when the old order collapses. That seems to be happening for the UK Greens now. I don't think we can force it here.

@lightweight @jeremy_pm

@isaacfreeman
> the main thing is to stay true to your principles, remain a credible institution, and be ready to take advantage when the old order collapses

100%. As they are now in the UK, the demographics will shift, Millennials/ Zoomers will outvote Boomers/ Xers, and things will change. This time we need our ideas to be the ones lying around when the crisis comes. We need to be everywhere, talking to everyone, finding common ground, building consensus.

@lightweight @jeremy_pm

@isaacfreeman
> this isn't anything major we're doing wrong, just a general complacency in our society fed by pervasive denialist propaganda

Fair comment, but I think there are a few things the Greens could do different.

They were one of the first NZ parties to use email lists and to have a blog (remember FrogBlog?), back when most politicos still thought the net was a phase. They could be making more use of new media; podcasting, fediverse, ATmosphere, etc

@lightweight @jeremy_pm

@isaacfreeman @strypey @lightweight

I know it’s not directly connected but I think Mamdani has provided a great blueprint for how politicians and political parties can reach people who may be outside of their assumed supporter base and energise politics.

Of course being a good looking and charismatic leader doesn’t hurt either. I like the way Chloe is becoming more confident in what she’s proposing.

(1/2)

One thing I agree with James Shaw about is growing active membership. It was crucial to Corbyn's Labour and it's one of the UK Greens most important achievements with Zack. But it's not just growth that matters, but *how* you grow.

Growth needs to be slow and steady enough for new members to be orientated into the party's structure and culture, and for those to evolve without splintering (side note: I suspect this is what TPM are reckoning with).

@jeremy_pm @isaacfreeman @lightweight

@strypey I agree on growing membership and maintaining culture. I think what's critical there is that there be a wider movement and workdview that the party represents. There is a solid small-g green perspective that grounds economic and social concerns in ecological science. It needs a political wing, thus the Green Party. The specific people are important tactically, but if all current MPs and members disappeared overnight, a new green party would rapidly form. No other existing party is going to advance a green political agenda.

This is why I was never particularly interested in Your Party. That's some people trying to catalyse a movement, not a movement creating a party. Likewise TOP in New Zealand.
@jeremy_pm @lightweight

@isaacfreeman
> Your Party ... some people trying to catalyse a movement, not a movement creating a party

I'll admit I don't know much about the details. But there definitely seemed to be a movement propelling Corbyn to the Labour leadership. Didn't the party membership swell in the leadup to his election for the first time in decades?

(1/2)

@jeremy_pm @lightweight

@strypey When I say movement, I mean an ideology that's expressed in many projects and institutions. The green movement isn't just the Green Party, it's also Greenpeace, Forest & Bird, the Sierra Club, and many other strong organisations. It's grounded in science and has a coherent economic analysis. The party belongs to that movement, not the other way around.

Corbyn seems like a decent guy, but I don't see a movement behind him. At most he's appealing to a movement that the Labour Party used to represent, but that wasn't enough to overcome the neoliberal movement that it currently exists to serve.

I'm being super reductive of course, and perhaps there's a better word for what I mean. But I'm generally unconvinced by parties that form around particular people. No matter how rapidly they grow in the short term, they're not stable.
@jeremy_pm @lightweight

@isaacfreeman
> But I'm generally unconvinced by parties that form around particular people

Totally agree. But to me it seems like the idea that this is built around Corbyn, comes from the same place as the idea being against IDF genocide is antisemitic; establishment media.

Corbyn is one among dozens of elected MPs and councillors getting behind the new party. That they got re-elected with Sir Stammer's knives in their backs suggests there is a movement behind them.

@jeremy_pm @lightweight