Succinct reply Mr Fromont. Perhaps the Green Party needs forward thinking people such as yourself in its midst.

Capitalism in its current form regards dwindling resourses as a win.Their insane logic is that decreased supply equals increased demand which adds value.Green policy has to rethink capitalism and democracy.Humanistic capitalism needs to equate value with quality of life ,benefit of the many instead of the few and the benefit of a living ecosystem more important than any temporal economic considerations .Neither of the main parties will do this.They are to intrenched in 20th century thinking.The Green movement needs a strong dare I say it reckless manifesto and leadership to begin a revolution and it needs to happen yesterday.

@Mouthguard: Because Maori society wasn't failing due to resource depletion. Easter Island did. Humanity can overthrow an awful system, but it needs to be on a global scale, otherwise you inevitably get mass death and misery as a socialist country struggles to become self sufficient in the absence of trade with capitalist countries. Realistically I think world revolution is never going to happen, so I do think as a civilisation we are doomed, but I don't think that because I hold humanity in low regard, but because I hold capitalism and its (overwhelmingly powerful) beneficiaries who defend it in low regard.

while i see a use to having the greens around, i disagree with them on far too many things to support them directly (for the most part, that'd be almost everything i've seen them support other than environmental stuff, though i wouldn't be surprised to discover i missed something one way or another). that said, the national/labour duopoly of meaningful power needs to be broken, and the greens do have the best chance of doing that so far as i can see. really, what needs to happen is that our governors need to actually do their jobs (putting an end to selling ministarial seats for support in parliament, among many other things)... but that seems unlikely to happen. simply breaking the chians of 'strategic voting' and habit based party support (two ticks being the only way to actually Waste a vote under the current system, and then only sometimes. well, if the 5% threshold didn't exist, anyway.) would go a long way to improve things, and having a third viable option for a government to center around would... improve that. though probably not fix it.

Alex, why choose Easter Island? Why not pre-european New Zealand? Seen Moa recently? Having had that poke, I agree with you. But we risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater the moment we speak in your terms. I suspect you think the Amish are a model of sustainability also, but most of us would be appalled by the idea that women are not worth educating. Pol Pot had very similar ideals to the ones of which you speak, and 6 million people who didn't fit into his agrarian model died, often for such outward badges of education like spectacles. Consider the end point of your argument. Instead of plundering the Earth, the only reasonable conclusion that you can eventually draw is to not procreate, and indeed human mass suicide may be the planet's only hope. I hold humanity in higher regard than that. I have hope that we can move forward, I have more respect for our abilities and nature than you seem to.

Nick, try looking at this http://theyworkforyou.co.nz/parliaments/49

No....didnt think so!

Im not having a crack, honest ! could someone (maybe you Nandor) please tell me apart from name how do the Maori and Green parties differ? On what policy do they not agree?. Thanks.

I would question whether the Green/SPD coalitions in Germany were pointless. At the moment, the German Greens are polling quite well as revulsion and fear spreads across Western Europe against the use of nuclear power.

Speaking of which, can anyone really foresee a National/Green/ACT coalition, given ACT's anti-science opposition to the scientific realities of climate change, its support for hitting children, and its embarrassing advocacy of nuclear power? Mind you, having selected John Banks for Epsom, they probably won't survive the next election anyway.

It's possible we actually agree to some extent - I don't think the Green movement should align itself with any party in Parliament because none of them will achieve 'Green' goals. But the political spectrum extends beyond what is in Parliament and, if the Greens want to achieve anything meaningful, they have to work to change an inherently destructive system (you're not going to get National or Labour to do anything that would upset capital, so there's no point being attached to them). Obviously that's extremely difficult, but nonetheless the Green movement has a duty to raise awareness of the inherent destructiveness of capitalism to even have a platform from which to achieve anything meaningful. Anything less is greenwashing.

And that, Alex, is why the Green movement shouldn't claim a place on the political spectrum - they should seek to be an influence on all governments, not just left wing ones.

Yet, when all's said and done, there have been effective and successful Social Democrat/Green administrations in Germany and there's no reason why there should not be similarly long-lived such governments in New Zealand come November 2011 (or perhaps, 2014). I look forward to it, as do many other centre-leftists.

By contrast, one need only look at the short tenure of German CDU/Green state coalitions and at the agonising decline of the UK Liberal Democrats under the current UK Cameron administration to recognise that if one sups with the devil, it is best to use as long a spoon as possible.

*Should be "no matter what you hang a price tag on and call it 'innovation'" rather than 'growth.'

Well said Nandor! The green party is way more multi coloured than the old left right paradigm which is well past it's used by date. The greens have a really good grip on MMP politics ie the quality of relationships, dialogue and a firm values foundation. And the political party is just one part of a much broader green movement, a movement that's a little becoming more mainstream every day. As for loyalty it's a very fine thing indeed but its a two way street - who has shown loyalty to the Green Party?

Matt - right wingers can believe what they want, but it won't stop the inherent drive for growth under capitalism and the destruction that causes. Societies have failed before due to resource depletion - Easter Island comes to mind. So I assume your argument that humans always adapt and innovate is that that the market always finds ways to innovate. Besides the obvious blind faith, the argument goes that we always find ways to add value. For example, we could make some new software that people buy - that would create economic growth. But people can't eat or drink software. No matter what you can hang a price tag on and call it 'growth,' it doesn't remove the real, physical limitations on what we can extract from the earth. That's why we need to plan how we use our limited resources - capitalism doesn't do that; it just takes until there's nothing left.