The Green Party on Monday night announced two of its current members of Parliament, Kennedy Graham and David Clendon, had effectively quit by saying they would withdraw from the party's list for the 23 September election.
Reports suggest the two made their moves in protest at co-leader Metiria Turei's decision not to resign following her admisison that she didn't declare a flatmate while on the domestic purposes benefit and that she had registered to vote in an electorate she didn't live in when she was 23.
However, that excuse might also be seen as the two being opportunistic. It was said that the two MPs had also been dissatisfied with their list places for Election 2017 - Graham at 8 and Clendon at 16 - for some time.
While co-leader James Shaw thanked the two for their service, the party's general manager had more choice words to say of the two.
"Neither of these candidates have been campaigning for us all year. David's made one phone call, and Kennedy's put in about three or four hours worth of calls," Sarah Helm was reported saying.
See a statement from Shaw below:
“Kennedy Graham and David Clendon have this evening decided to withdraw their names from the Green Party’s 2017 party list.
“We are disappointed they’ve made this decision, though we respect their right to do so.
“The Green Party is fortunate to have high calibre and energetic candidates on the party list, who are campaigning hard for the party.
“With this decision, candidates including Hayley Holt, Teall Crossen, Teanau Tuiono, Leilani Tamu, Matt Lawrey and Elizabeth Kerekere all move up two places on the Green Party list.
“We are looking forward to bringing these talented new candidates into Parliament at the election and will continue campaigning hard on our top issues of clean water, ending poverty, and climate action.
“I want to thank both David and Kennedy for their service to the Green Party. We wish David and Kennedy all the best,” said Mr Shaw.
61 Comments
Have to admit have never heard of either of them but accept , that while I am hardly likely to be unique in that regard, one should be better informed because if their stand is from the moral high ground they are to be applauded. PIty then that their profile only surfaces now, as and/or because they are departing. As an aside, but nevertheless with some relevance I think, I am completely with Winston that we do not need, and have never needed, 120 MP's. In fact that is what the Royal Commission said too.
Kennedy Graham is quite well known and quite prolific. He was the one who engineered the cross-party report on climate change and ensuing discussions. It's a heavy blow for the Green party, at least for those who stand firmly on environmental principles.
Labour and TOP are probably the biggest winners from this.
Thanks & mathclub's comment subsequently too, has given an insight of something and somebody I should have been aware of. Therefore what is happening here is a travesty, a good apple is going and a bad apple stays. A double loss and negative then for all of us. The Green's, so forthcoming and expressive on social issues, need to have a good look at these inside their own barrel first.
Amongst the lies the big one was not the fraud. It was the edited revelation about it. The big lie was the distortion of the facts to gain some sort of sympathy and advantage. Turei was trying to con the poverty stricken and those who care for them. Creepy, manipulative and deliberative.
She should resign tomorrow, but she has no integrity so will have to be pushed.
As long time Nat voter looking for new home I think Bill was up to his neck in the saga but that was to do with trying to resolve a clear employment breakdown young (arrogant?) MP told to keep Bills old staffer with Bill having to pick up the mess of his own creation. Don't get particularly excited about the taping, pales beside Metiria. On which would love to vote for a green party who push green regardless, this Green mob ain't it.
I attended a debate on the Emissions Trading Scheme a few years back, where the parties were represented by Kennedy Graham, Moana Mackey (Labour), Tim Groser (National) and the old Act guy, is it Jamie White?
I left the event hugely impressed with Kennedy Graham. Although I disagreed with what he was saying a lot of the time, he was able to disagree on the issues discussed whilst still being respectful of the other people. He was intelligent, articulate and came across as a very reasonable and rational person. It was a business crowd, who weren't interested in cheap theatrics and he came across extremely well, to me at least. He looked like he could hold an executive position in a corporate with ease. To be honest I was shocked as it totally contradicted the lefty hippy nutjob view I had of the Greens. By contrast Moana Mackey was a petulant child that had no substance to her and was unable to act like an adult at any stages during the proceedings. She looked like someone who had spent her life in politics, had never had a real job and would be lucky to be hired in a call centre. I wouldn't let her talk to my customers.
The upshot is that if a more reasonable, rational and business friendly version of the greens coalesced around Kennedy and focused purely on the environmental matters without the socialist leanings then they could get a lot of traction. It would leave the nutters following Metiria and they would go nowhere. By contrast Kennedys party would take votes off every other party, putting them in government every time if they could be centrist on all other issues and show they could work with people on both sides.
If I was James Shaw I'd break away, join up with Kennedy and the other reasonable Greens and leave those other nutters behind.
As with the majority of politicians, what is at play here is ambition cross pollinated with ego. You see when you have built your ego up to the heights of Turei, and then when you trip over it, well it's then a long way to fall, and scarcely any of these sort of identities have either the courage or conscience to take the plunge. Mr Gilmore? and Mr Barclay from National are II think other fine examples, but at least that party did act, eventually.
My wife works with families in Manukau, who have drug and violence problems, trying to help families to build stable environments for themselves and their children. The Benefit fraud is HUGE. Metiria is just a small example of existing fraudulent activities. But this is the way that these people survive.
..yes PKchew...you have hit the nail.
Everyone seens happy to dump on her, but how about dealing with what she has exposed or is tryng to highlight? A system designed in 1964. I can recall people back then pretending they had a job when they were unemployed as it was so shameful. The sytsem relied largely on honesty... and from what I see it largely still does. But ......is the sytem broken?
This is the real issue....and most of us have been suckered into thinking she is the problem. Classic distraction technique. Media and commentators being led away from the real issue....
Duelling Welfare payments at 50 paces
Welfare Fraud is much cheaper than Motel Accommodation and Multi-National Tax avoidance
Problem is Metiria Turei highlights welfare fraud as a problem and you lift the lid on the extent of welfare fraud in Manukau and Paula Bennet has to send the bovver-boy around to your place and Metiria's to get you both to SHUT UP because if you both keep bleating on about it and the WINZ Police go calling we end up with a whole lot of welfare beneficiaries in debt and Paula Bennet having to put them up in motels creating the possibility there are not enough motels available
Then the Tourism Lobbyists phone Bill Blunder on speed-dial and complain the touristas can't get accommodation and then all the Marae's have to be opened up to accommodate tourists
Not sure if TOG is being sarcastic but actually something in that. However question then is whether fraud rampant cos genuinely not getting enough or whether "enough" includes Sky tv,ciggies,meth,not making sensible purchasing decisions etc. So should beneficiaries get the minimum wage as a talk back caller claimed. If so why would the min worker work.I don't know the answer but instinct tells me that making the benefit "attractive" is not good. Also like Oliver human nature wants more so simply raising the benefit and not making beneficiaries accountable (is that Green or TOP policy?) won't stop fraud.
Actually it is tax fraud that is HUGE as you put it PK - benefit fraud not so much.
So why the selective judgement from conservative morality crusaders?
You only have to listen to the RW turds constantly framing taxation as "theft" to understand their contempt for a civilised society.
Are you a property investor paashaas? Because the concept of 'living by leaching off of others' is exactly how I see darklords.....they live by leaching off other peoples wages in the form of rent....I mean really, whats the difference between receiving the benefit vs receiving rent? In either case, you actually do nothing meaningful to receive the money that you're getting. So conceptually and ethically, I put darklords and benefit receivers in the same category. Leaches....
Not at all - the two are interdependent.....property investors (who also appear to generally be National voters) have pushed the cost of living in NZ so high (for their own personal gain) for the average kiwi that now we have a bunch of people who can't afford to get by so they need government support. And yet you blame the beneficiary for the greed of others?
You have to ask yourself whether you want to fix the cause or if you want to deal with the effect. In my opinion, greed in the form of darklords/property investors is the significant cause, beneficiaries is the effect. Unless you address the cause, its pointless trying to address the effect...So why not call property investors the leaches?
Okay so jump in your time machine and go fix that then...
Or deal with the broken system we have here and now - where there are likely tens of thousands of people currently lying in order to receive benefits.
That is something we can actually do - unless you actually have a time machine?
So same concept as Bill English and Todd Barcley? In which case National did its very best to sweep the issue under the carpet and deceive NZ'ers by not opening up about what really occured (and are still to this day..). I mean, why doesn't Bill English tell us exactly what happened instead of having mixed opinions on what hell tells the public and what he tells the police?
So is it more ethically sound to deny/deceive about issues like this, or open up, be honest and tell the truth. At this point in time, most Kiwi's find it more acceptable to deny/deceive which is a little sad..... It appears to be a reflection of the way a lot of people are living their lives...
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.