John Armstrong: Much for Greens to chew on

Voters think what the party is saying is confused, predictable and even stale. Its position on the political spectrum consigns it to relative impotence. The upper levels of the organisation are wracked by an unhealthy and unproductive culture of workaholism. The party does not cherish its members. Good ideas suffer a death by a thousand sub-committees. And so on.

It's the Greens, Jeanette, but not as you would want us to know you.

The six-week campaign to choose the party's new male co-leader has been a civilised affair - on the surface at least. But it has been no less frank for being so.

The biting criticisms listed above are sourced from material issued to members by the four contenders fighting to fill the post. The personal lobbying will have been even more direct.

Barring any last-minute tantrums, however, the Greens will have done what Act failed to do in 2004: conduct a multi-candidate leadership election over a period of weeks without spilling the party's guts in public. That is a tribute to the Greens' self-discipline.

The finale comes late this afternoon when the Silverstream Retreat in the Hutt Valley will echo to thunderous applause as the party announces the successor to the late Rod Donald.

Celebrations aside, the co-leadership election has brought matters to the fore that the Greens have long been reluctant to address or have pushed into the background.

Regardless of who ends up standing alongside Jeanette Fitzsimons - be it the intellectually impressive, but emotionally detached Russel Norman or the more outwardly warmer, but more polarising Nandor Tanczos - the "new" leadership pairing cannot pretend the internal debate over the last six weeks did not happen.

The choice is clear. The party can either continue to drift ever closer to the 5 per cent threshold before eventually slipping over the edge. Or it breaks out of its ideological comfort zone and gets serious about capturing a new tier of voters who are partially turned on by some of the things the Greens would do but completely turned off by others.

That means grappling with six things:

1. Work out what the Green "brand" really means. The leadership election has brought the argument about party direction to a head.

Should the party's primary focus be placed overwhelmingly on environmental matters - as argued by Tanczos. Or is the delivery of social justice inextricably intertwined with ensuring environmental sustainability - as suggested by Norman?

The latter argues that social justice policies - raising the minimum wage, for example - are crucial to expanding the Greens' vote. Tanczos counters that this only dilutes the Greens' brand and leaves the party stranded on Labour's left.

If the Greens can only strike deals with Labour, it has no leverage over Labour. Should the party reposition itself more independently of Labour? Should it do the unthinkable and relax its point-blank refusal to prop up a National-led Government?

If Norman wins - and he remains the front-runner - there will be mutterings about "left-wing takeovers", especially with Sue Bradford being a potential successor to Fitzsimons in the next parliamentary term.

There is a groundswell of opinion that social justice issues are getting too much attention.

But this mood is probably not deep enough to help Tanczos. His chances are diminished by the party's "anti-conflict" ethos, which in turn should help Norman, who is the "safe" candidate.

2. Cut the plethora of messages to voters to several core items. Increase their coherence. Sharpen the delivery.

The Greens have used the personal passions of their MPs to tap into constituencies. These vary from "safe food" campaigns dealing with the content of school lunches to trying to close the Waihopai satellite-tracking station.

This should continue. But on a secondary level.

Tanczos has called this the "politics of addition" and argues it has reached it limits. Votes rarely swing on single issues which, in the Greens' case, need to be packaged under some core themes which would be pushed to the forefront on the back of three or for major core issues.

These must also "connect" with voters' daily lives. So when the party talks climate change, it always talks about solar heating in the same breath.

3. Stop looking for the "hot" issue to replace genetic engineering. There isn't one. These come along once a decade.

GE was a winner for the Greens because the party was almost alone in being on the right side of public opinion, which was heavily skewed against GE and vehemently so.

Climate change is in a different category. Everyone agrees it is not a good thing. But it is not going to happen tomorrow. Getting traction from the issue is correspondingly more difficult.

4. Devote more than a passing interest to economic policy.

A party that is not seen to take economic policy seriously is not going to be treated seriously by voters.

Voters might have heard of the party's "buy New Zealand-made" campaign or its efforts to raise the minimum wage. Beyond that, well ...

Worse, voters have no concept of how such initiatives knit together in a Green economic framework.

5. Make it harder for opponents to tag the Greens as "whacky" or "scary".

This requires more professionalism in presentation, more concentration on image, more reaching out to lobbies with which the party has had little interaction.

It means ensuring there are no distractions blocking the party's message.

This has been Norman's pitch - that he would be a credible public face for the party who could reach beyond the inner cities into suburbia.

The implication is that Tanczos, though more media savvy, is an obstacle to people connecting with the party.

6. Revitalise the grassroots membership. The parliamentary wing feels over-worked; the membership feels ignored.

Tanczos blames cumbersome decision-making procedures for paralysing "bottom up" initiatives. Norman talks of reviving the "intellectual culture" within the party.

Another leadership contender, Dave Clendon, says the party has lost some of its edge.

Unlike other minor parties, the Greens have three big things going for them - commitment, consistency and credibility. But they seem to have forgotten how to inspire and excite.

Overall, the Greens need to re-energise and prioritise.

The hiatus following Donald's death must end - and for one compelling reason. The Greens were squeezed severely at the last election after left-leaning voters felt compelled to back Labour for fear of letting National grab power. It could be even worse next time.

Giving the Green brand a facelift does not entirely solve that problem.

But it is a start.