I Wanna Be Dirty: James Shaw and Greens

datePosted on 10:50, April 29th, 2016 by E.A.

I write this only partially tongue in cheek and my original title was going to be a reference to a Kermit the Frog song*

A final piece of the puzzle fell into place this week with the announcement in the paper that Andrew Campbell, the Green party chief of staff, was leaving to allow â€œsome fresh ideas and new legsâ€ to take over in his role.

The funny thing was that he had been in the job less than a year after replacing Ken Spagnolo, the previous chief of staff for over eight years, in a direct move by co-leader James Shaw, to bring in new blood and ideas in preparation for the expected 2017 election (and probably clear the decks of any not down with Shawâ€™s new business friendly approach to the environment).

But that comment flies in the face of co-leader Metiria Tureiâ€™s statement about Andrew wanting to leave after the 2014 election but agreeing to stay on to help Shaw settle into the role. Has James settled in yet? If so why is Campbell the third senior party staffer to leave in short order? Coms and Policy Director David Cormack (a person some believe to be the actual brains behind the Greens) and Chief Press Secretary Leah Haines both immediately preceded him.

Personality conflicts in politics are not new and party staff generally know not to contradict the leader but when key staff are either removed (as in the case of Spagnolo) or leaving in droves (as with the other three) it takes more than claims of â€œcoincidenceâ€ to assuage the growing feeling that something is not right in the good ship Green.

The obvious cause is new male co-leader James Shaw himself, who with his corporate background with HSBC (the money launderers bank of choice) and PriceWaterhouseCoopers (an organisation with so many scandals attached to its name I will not relate them here but encourage any who are interested to have a dig themselves) seems an extremely unusual choice for a party whose charter explicitly states â€œunlimited material growth is impossibleâ€ in two of its four articles.

Shaw won the co-leadership showdown in mid-2015 when Russell Norman moved off to greener pastures (pun intended) to work for Greenpeace NZ. An impressive feat for a first term MP and one, at least in my mind, had shades of the Brash Coup run on National in the 2000â€™s about it.

Shaw himself is pro-market and believes that it can be reformed to be sustainable, which is a laudable sentiment for a member of the young Nats but not in a party like the Greens. These kind of ideas, Shawâ€™s background and the recent statements from the party about doing and end run around Labour to work with National on some issues show that the Greens of the past may soon be replaced by the â€œGreensâ€ of the future.

But perhaps itâ€™s just my paranoia that I see all of these things as being connected, perhaps itâ€™s just me, but somehow I donâ€™t think so as various other in the blog sphere have also noted these changes and the fact that it warranted mention in the mainstream media leads me to think that we are on the cusp of a major change in the Greens.

In my previous â€œanalysesâ€ of Labour, National and NZ First I focused mostly on the failings of the past to illustrate the potential/possible issues in the future but in the case of the Greens I canâ€™t do that.

The Greens currently stand alone in NZ politics as being an actual party of virtue in a parliament full of corruption, incompetence, nepotism and just plain criminality. They are a party which has a genuine political agenda which it has been willing to stand up for, which is why almost every other party in parliament hates them and why several sections of government keep their eye on them.

If any political party has ever been under watch by the SIS; monitored by the GCSB, infiltrated by the SIG, loathed by the Police and hated by Labour itâ€™s the Greens. Itâ€™s a party which grew from the Values party in 1972, lived through the tumultuous years of the Alliance in the 90s before going it alone in the 2000s. This is a party that has explicitly argued for the removal of the Security Services as they currently are and our exit from the Five Eyes agreement as well as being an active and persistent thorn in the side of any government which doesnâ€™t prioritize the environment or fails the social contract (Gareth Hughes blistering rebuttal to John Keyâ€™s recent parliament commencement speech is a fine example of this).

The Greens are a party which has taken the moral high ground from Labour in the wake of the leadership squabbles after Helen Clark departed (although some say Labour just gave it up when they started the reforms of 1984) and has wielded it ever since, using it like a magic cloak to deflect any criticisms.

And there have been criticisms aplenty over the years from the usual pat dismissals by politicians of their policy or position (often with no actual substance to back up why they donâ€™t agree with them) to the all but outright taunts of being â€œgovernmental virginsâ€ to the â€œbloody hippie tree huggerâ€ comments which spew forth from many regular Kiwis when asked about the Green party or their policies. And thatâ€™s not even discussing the hate Labour has for the Greens.

If John Key could have all dissenting views in parliament rounded up and shipped off to a re-education â€œresortâ€ the Greens would certainly be on that list but it would be â€œjust business, nothing personalâ€ to him. And, with only a small sprinkling of fantasy dust could one imagine members of the Greens and National meeting for a beer in Pickwicks after a â€œhard dayâ€ in the debating chamber. One could not imagine such a picture between the Greens and Labour no matter how much magic dust was going round.

If Labour could have all Greens rounded up it would not be â€œre-educationâ€ that they would receive but low altitude skydiving lessons from Air Force helicopters sans parachute out over Cook Straight at night, if it is business with National its personal with Labour.

The Greens owe a large part of their vote base to disgruntled Labour voters and Labour knows it. Labour has treated the Greens like vassals from the earliest days and given their position on the political spectrum expected them to back Labour no matter what (which is why the Greens extension of the hand of friendship to National, even on minor issues has further enraged Labour and provided a pragmatic, but also very dangerous, way to cut through the Gordian knot of being to the left of looser Labour on the political spectrum.

Worse still, the Greens are almost certainly going to gain at the polls as the 2017 election approaches (current polls have them riding high along with NZ First while Labour sags to 26% and National slips closer to 40%) and have proven to have no concern about exposing Labours (and specifically Helen Clark’s) hypocrisy (as its widely believed that they were responsible for the leaks that led to Seeds of Distrust; Nicky Hagarâ€™s expose of Labours cover up of GE contamination in NZ) to get votes.

So in dissecting the Green party at this current time itâ€™s not the past to which I am concerned but the future and to put it simply it looks like the Greens are about to (take a deep breath and say it with me) compromise. In daily use compromise is not a bad term but in politics it almost always means abandoning your principles to reach a short term expediency at the cost of both your long term supporters and policy goals.

For parties like National and Labour compromise (also known as sitting on the fence, seeing which way the wind blows and â€œflip floppingâ€) is easy as both have no morals and long since abandoned their core principles in pursuit of power for individual party members and rabid accommodation of whatever orthodoxy is being touted at the time but for the Greens this will not be so easy.

To begin with the Greens capture of the moral high ground is a strategic part of their appeal. They can take positions and advocate issues which would get other parties in hot water; lambaste the government of the day and catch the wind of popular but politically problematic issues (like the TPPA) only because they have this high ground, without it they would be another fringe party which would get whipped senseless with their own past faults and misdeeds if they dared to speak out. Truly they are the hand which can cast the first stone.

Another is that while Shaw himself may be a champagne environmentalist (the 21st century equivalent of Labours champagne socialists) many of the core rank and file are not. Every new voter to the Greens that is merely running from the nitwit antics in Labour will run straight back if either Labour shapes up and flies right (geddit?) or the â€œsustainableâ€ future Shaw is presenting doesnâ€™t allow people to continue to live their lives under the economic and social model they are accustomed to (for example if rising sea levels did actually require we give up driving cars and banning dairy farms). The core supporters of the greens will likely support the policy measures which reflect the partyâ€™s charter but angry voters seeking revenge on Labour or National by voting Green will not.

So the Greens are now at a crucial juncture and with the 2017 election approaching its clear that the Green brain trust has decided get into the game and dispense of the one thing that holds them back which is (pardon my French) governmental virginity. By taking the sandals off, combing the dreadlocks out and with a nice suit or sweater/skinny jeans combo from Hallensteins the Greens will be ready to go to the 2017 Ball and get their cherry popped by that nice Jewish boy from Christchurch or any other potential suitor (perhaps even giving a second chance to that boy next door after his previous sweaty fumblingâ€™s and cloddish behavior).

But there are a few problems with this scenario and Shaw would do well to heed the lessons of history when it comes to playing with fire. The fate of the Lib Dems in the UK, the Maori Party and NZ First should serve as warnings to any minor party leader willing to put short term expediency ahead of long term progress.

Of the three the fate of the Lib Dems is probably the more pertinent. They spent 20 years building up a respectable position in UK politics, under a FPPs system no less, getting 20% of the vote and seats in the house only to piss it all away when in 2010 they supported the Tories in a hung parliament and began to abandon their core principles (as well as break a few key election promises). The voters, predictably, did not like this new direction and the party was slaughtered at the polls in 2015.

In retrospect it probably looked like a bad move to the Lib Dems, but only in retrospect. To everyone else it was clear from the get go that it was a bone headed move and a clear sell out.

Closer to home Winston Peters brainless stunt in 1996 (discussed in my earlier post) and the Maori Parties deal with the devil in 2008 saw both suffer for letting their leadership sell out the voters for a seat at the cabinet table.

It would be unfair though to pin all the blame on Shaw though. He was elected through the Greens relatively fair leadership selection process (one not as convoluted as Labours or as secretive as Nationals) so it appears that he is not the only Champagne environmentalist in the Greens and perhaps many in the party itself want to stop being the wallflower of NZ politics and run naked through the streets singing â€œTouch-A-Touch-A-Touch-A-Touch Me!â€

If this is the case then James Shaw and Metiria Turei are the Brad and Janet of NZ politics while Key is Frank N Furter (with possibly Winston as Riff Raff, Andrew Little as Dr Scott and yours truly as the Narrator). I will leave you to fill in the rest of the cast roles as you see fit.

But the puzzle I referred to at the start of this post has not yet been solved but I think the picture is becoming clearer. If we discount the â€œcoincidenceâ€ argument in favour of a more holistic approach we see that new leadership with new ideas, mass changes in key staff and indications of attempts to exit the political corner that the Greens have painted themselves into shows a party on the cusp of a major political shift, a party that is smelling the winds of change and planning to take full advantage of them.

The dangers of this course of action are not always clear and while I personally donâ€™t subscribe to the following rumors (at least not yet) I feel they are worth mention here just to add some zest to an otherwise dull analysis and to indicate just how problematic the issue is.

They are: a) Shaw is a corporate Trojan horse (ala Don Brash in both the National and ACT coups); b) Shaw is an agent provocateur in the pay of the security services (not so astounding once you realize that itâ€™s a known fact that the security services have had paid informants in environmental groups since the 90s; orÂ  c) the Greens have a serious case of political blue balls and are now prepared to do anything (and I mean â€œanythingâ€) to get into power (this one could be answered a lot easier if we knew who exactly is funding the Greens, not something I have had time to do yet but if anyone wants to let me know I would be grateful).

But at the end of the day the Greens are still a party which is currently fighting the good fight and with an entirely justified moral stance and matching policy prescriptions. When you match up any doubts about the party with the generally disgusting and loathsome behavior of the rest of the rabble in parliament a few potential worries about their direction pale into significance. Only time will tell if it stays that way.

* Its Not Easy Being Green/Bein’ Green.

6 Responses to “I Wanna Be Dirty: James Shaw and Greens”

  1. Andrew R on May 2nd, 2016 at 15:58

    This article is just a fact free rant. I suggest you read the Greens internal decision making processes, and learn why it isn’t like, eg, the UK liberal Democrats.

  2. E.A. on May 4th, 2016 at 11:08

    Andrew: Not quite a fact free rant but not all sourced either, as a blog I don’t (and wont) take it to the next level but please be assured I do take the time to check most of the facts that go into what I write.

    Iâ€™m interested why you think the Greens wouldnâ€™t take the step of compromising though like the Lib Dems (decision making process or not). Personally i dont think they should but its that or stay on the fringes for now.

    If you can provide a link to that document you mentioned I will have a read as I will be the first to adjust my position if new information comes to hand.

    I would also add that I noted at the top of my post that this one was (somewhat) tongue in cheek, If I wrote it straight I would have a lot less to write about.

  3. Phil Sage on May 14th, 2016 at 22:15

    The reference to Key as a “nice Jewish boy” is a flag that you have accepted the UK Labour inherent anti semitism. Your Act post has similar allusions. Interesting.

  4. E.A. on May 16th, 2016 at 15:16

    Phil: Sorry, not correct, I’m actually making one of those jokes you hear in NY movies (Woody Allen etc) about girls “marring a nice Jewish boy, like doctor” and such (ie the kind of reference a worried parent makes to their wayward child kind) which was the context of the paragraph (ie wild and unconventional Greens pairing up with the boy next door in the political version of the romantic odd couple. The fact that Key had a Jewish background and just made it all the more easier to link into the kind of humor you see in those movies).

    If he had had an Italian background I still could have made such a joke (ie – “why don’t you marry a nice Italian girl and settle down”).

    The “tongue in cheek” warning at the start of the post and the general tone of that particular comment, if read in context, was humor dear sir, just humor.

    Also I fail to see how making reference to someones religious background automatically makes me anti-semitic, certainly in a comment like that. I think your making about 15 (ill)logical jumps on my behalf in trying to link my posts to me supporting UK Labour or am anti-semitic.

    As for the ACT post, you will have to be more specific what in that made you think as you do.

  5. Lew on May 17th, 2016 at 09:31

    Woody Allen, while vile for other reasons, is Jewish. So it’s different when he cracks that kind of wise.


  6. E.A. on May 17th, 2016 at 10:34

    Lew: True, but I have never been of the view that simply because you are not part of the target group of the joke that you cannot make a joke about them.

    In expanding on that a bit I like the Mad Magazine/HST/Jon Stewart style/school of reporting, mocking, lampooning and generally poking fun at everything and anyone, ie – there are no sacred cows school of thought, this includes myself, who I have (as you may have noted) mocked and demeaned in my posts.

    I don’t claim to be anywhere as good as these icons but I do like their style and as such while I will respect a persons right to have opinions and views that does not prevent comment, reference or even criticism of them at times. Not just because I can but because if it fits the context of a situation or comment.

    I’m aware that I am wading into a PC minefield by saying that but being labeled an anti-Semite based on two comments I made which appear to have been taken out of context in blog posts full of potentially upsetting and offensive comments looks to me like (as Frank Zappa once said) controversy stalking me, not me stalking controversy.

    I would also add that while not Jewish I have a few friends who are and I ran my “nice boy” comment past them before posting and neither objected. Perhaps they are more inured to my sense of humor.

Leave a Reply

Name: (required)
Email: (required) (will not be published)