I got to the venue a little after two. Afraid I’d missed the weekend’s main event, I strode purposefully through AUT’s wide open-plan campus looking for a registrations desk manned by whatever the Green Party equivalent of a bouncer was – or, failing that, one of the other usual signs betraying an infestation of organized political activity.
Now usually, the customary dead giveaway of a political convention afoot in the immediate vicinity is the knot of almost invariably conspiratorial-looking smokers in suits gathered just out of earshot of a side-entrance.
This being The Greens, however, no such easy direction via smoke-signal was in evidence. Instead, the row of parked-up news crew vans outside a particular building told me all I needed to know.
Inside, I’d like to have said that the atmosphere was electric … but this is the Green Party we’re talking about. Instead, it was more akin to cotton candy:
Drawn out, metaphorically brightly coloured, and arguably on something of a sugar-high.
I didn’t get much time to surveil the scene. Less than a minute after entering, I was hit up by one of their press-wranglers. She asked if I was aware of the ‘ground rules’ governing my attendance at their AGM in my TDB capacity. We went through them. I didn’t bother querying what it was that justified my good self apparently being subject to my own unique set of strictures which applied to nobody else in the room. She then pointed out where the rest of the waiting press pack had set up shop, and I headed over armed with my notebook and netbook to bunker up.
Kept running into people I know from the internet. Didn’t realize my fanbase was so strong within The Greens. Found myself genuinely surprised by how non-partisan pretty much everyone I talked to was being. In most parties, you’d have expected full-blown animosity between various different personality-based factions (Hello, Labour!). The Greens, by contrast, just all seemed genuinely excited that they were about to have a new leader, and that everyone from across the political spectrum, blogosphere and beltway was queuing up to take a look at them doing it.
Almost everyone I spoke to reckoned Hague had it in the bag. Some predicted it’d be close. Others figured it’d be a clear lead for Hague. I found it a little surprising, given the eventual result, how few in number the people who were prepared to own up to voting for Shaw were, before his victory.
Then, we got down to business.
A conscious attempt was made to build social media into proceedings, with the MC reeling off a few of the tweets in circulation about the upcoming co-leader announcement. After half a dozen of these, the statement that the next co-leader of The Greens was, in fact, Twitter – and that in future, the election process could be replaced entirely by contests on social media for the number of re-tweets, seemed to have an eerie significance.
The process was then gone through, and I found myself somewhat surprised at the number of voting delegates cited: one hundred and twenty seven, plus fifteen proxy votes. Even the least well-attended NZ First Convention I’ve been at had easily twice that number of voting delegates on the floor. I’m sure there’s some interesting conclusions to be drawn from this factoid about how the Greens structure and run their internal democracy.
Finally, after continuing to build it up for what seemed like an interminably drawn out length of time, the election result was announced.
There was a few seconds’ pause, during which my mind filled in the blank by cycling through the two lead contenders’ names over and over expectantly waiting to hear the first syllable – whether a Ke- or a Ja- (and pondering what each possible outcome would mean) … followed up by the declaration: “James Shaw!”
What happened next, I wasn’t expecting. The room fell silent for about half a second, followed immediately by a not insignificant number of moans of displeasure scattered across the venue. While this is exactly what you’d expect in literally any other party, the Greens had all seemed so unanimously *positive* and team-spirited (or, less charitably, hive-minded) about this entire process all afternoon that I genuinely felt surprised to hear such a reaction. It was also a little curious that it took another half a second or so before the jubilant cheers began to ring in from the rest of the room. Perhaps, given the received wisdom up until literally a few minutes before the announcement that Hague was in for an easy victory had meant that the Shaw supporters in the room simply weren’t prepared for nor expecting their candidate to win, and therefore took a moment or two to register that they had, in fact, contributed to a surprise victory.
In any case, the noise soon built to an almost physical force – a wave of excitement and positivity-at-possibility of the sort only an entire party who seem to be built around prophecying a better tomorrow can generate.
Eventually, the cheering died down and Shaw was ushered toward a microphone in order to make a victorious address.
He first chose to acknowledge and pay tribute his competitors, starting with Vernon Tava and ending with Kevin Hague. I found his choice of epithets for his opponents interesting – praising Vernon for his “intellectual honesty” in standing up for a controversial idea genuinely believed in (as well as a sensible statement that it took serious courage to mount such a challenge from *outside* of Caucus and while not an MP); Gareth Hughes for both his value as an “ideas man”, and performance as a rising star; and Kevin Hague … for his attributes as a person.
At some point part-way through this, Metiria Turei burst into tears.
Shaw then managed to deploy that “charisma” thing which we’ve all picked up on here in the Commentariat … and had the audience cracking up about a car-ride across the lower part of the North Island. The rest of his speech emphasized party unity – specifically the “commonality of ideas” which he discovered between himself and the other contenders on said road-trip; as well as the obligatory acknowledgement of the contribution of his predecessor, Russel Norman. I also found myself chortling when he expressed relief that The Greens had managed to conduct their own internal leadership campaigning without any of the petty if not outright poisonous personality-based pugilism which characterized the leadership transitions in certain other institutions – “like the Labour party … I know that’s not a very high bar”.
All in all, the impression I received from my brief near-Greens experience on Saturday afternoon was that this was a party which had long since come of age … but was now either entering into a new adolescence – or possibly in the throes of a very, very minor mid-life crisis. It’s gone through several previous developmental phases, and as of the last election they were sort-of expecting all their earlier growth and studious evolution to culminate in the transition into something approaching major party status. That still would have been an election or two away, even had they managed to breach their own “sound-barrier” of their previous height of polling and crack into the mid-teens in terms of percent of the party vote … but it had seemed realistic, attainable.
Their failure to do that on Election Night 2014 arguably, to my mind, was what induced Russel Norman to step aside and let someone else have a crack from the top job at doing so.
They’ve spent the last few months soul-searching, no doubt, about how they – as a party, rather than as a structure directed by an individual – can best seek to achieve the fulfillment of that promise most everyone had previously sensed about them. And the last few weeks deciding which chosen champion of the four on offer could do the most to actually put the Greens into the center-stage pole position which they believe is now their natural place in politics. And, at the same time, preside over another fundamental transition within the Green Party’s membership, ethos and organizational culture to both parallel and enable this.
A mark of either their maturity or their immaturity as a political party (depending upon how cynical you are, respectively) is that they instantly seemed to gel together as soon as the result was announced, in support of their new leader and in eschewment of whichever putative factions may have developed over the preceding months. I’m sure that – as ever in politics – behind closed doors, it’s something of a different story … but I somehow can’t imagine Labour being anywhere near as unified mere seconds after such a close vote had been undertaken and announced.
Personally, I think The Greens have made the right choice in their selection of co-leader for reaching out to those beyond (possibly even considerably beyond) the voter-base they’ve enjoyed for the previous sixteen years. Hague was a strong contender, and would have brought with him institutional buy-in from many of the networks which he and his Caucus colleagues have poured so much time and effort into building. He also would have solidly shored up The Greens’ base, with an impressive personal and Parliamentary record of advocacy on behalf of causes very, very close to their collective (bleeding) heart. But would he have been able to grow the vote at the same rate that Shaw seems set to? I’m not so sure.
It’s hard for an established Parliamentarian to capture the popular imagination in quite the same way as an outsider’s fresh perspective, and while his honeymoon period transpires I’d almost expect to see Shaw inspire a faint echo of the Obama zeitgeist from his victory. And while he doesn’t have the demonstrably competent Parliamentary background to point to of someone like Hague – or even Hughes – Shaw’s lack of previous spotlight-political experience may come as a surprising advantage in this, as he has fewer less-palatable-to-slightly-
Hell, I’m even slightly worried that he’ll be hewing into *our* vote over here in New Zealand First.
In any case, for the purposes of both growing their vote and matching John Key, I think Shaw is more than equal to the task.
The serious question now is not whether The Greens can build upon their 2014 vote – but rather, at whose expense it comes at.
If I were Andrew Little … I’d be hella worried about being eclipsed completely.
[Thanks to everyone who helped to get me in to The Greens’ AGM in the first place. You know who you are 😉 ]
[…] work with National. The beauty of this strategy is that even if the left wing activist base walks (and the immediate reaction to Shaw as leader by members as Curwen describes it suggests that’s a reality), the Greens could drop to 6% but by being a potential ally of […]
“What happened next, I wasn’t expecting. The room fell silent for about half a second, followed immediately by a not insignificant number of moans of displeasure scattered across the venue. While this is exactly what you’d expect in literally any other party, the Greens had all seemed so unanimously *positive* and team-spirited (or, less charitably, hive-minded) about this entire process all afternoon that I genuinely felt surprised to hear such a reaction.”
This tells me exactly what I thought and had feared.
In reality, the Greens are in some ways split, when it comes to the future direction of the party, and it clearly showed in the vote, where James Shaw got 54 percent of the vote and Kevin Hague 44 percent, the other two just 1 percent each.
There are those who would have preferred a safe and experienced pair of hands like those of Kevin, and those who want to change the image and direction of the party to some degree, to get wider appeal, which most of them perceive to be achieved by getting more middle class, environmentally concerned people voters interested, who may in some cases have voted National, as they are also pro business and market driven policies.
The difference between the Greens and Labour and some other parties is, they just do not show this. They either shut up and turn the perceived problem into a virtue, or they sooner or later move on and out of the party. Hence the cheering after the initial surprise and worry of many.
So to not appear divided, they swiftly embraced the result and new leader, also bearing in mind, the media being present.
But there will be some in the membership and their caucus who are worried.
If people would listen carefully, James Shaw, while knowing he can only succeed by convincing his party members and fellow MPs, is keen on a change of direction AND policy. He did more than hint it in an interview with Corin Dann on Q+A on Sunday. Other comments re-enforce this, although some prefer to believe his assurances, that he will listen to Metiria, learn, and discuss matters (as needed) within the party.
This is indeed a game changer, and I can see that Metiria may at some time also see her days numbered, as the “social” policy, that the Greens have been somewhat strong on, appears to be due for some “review”.
Maybe the pragmatists see the win of Shaw as the right choice of the time, but I reflect on the realities that Green or similar parties overseas have faced, when moving to “the centre”. They tend to win new members and votes, but lose other at the other end (the more traditional environmentalists, some “purists”, and those with social, more left leaning interests).
And how many former National voters, and I include the nowadays many swing voters, would they likely win?
Looking at the Nats and Key and their program, I would think, that one has to be rather pro laissez faire market, believe in hands off policy, in traditional right of centre policy, to even consider voting them. The voting sector of the public has gradually moved to the right, while we have close to a million rather disillusioned, or not even interested, non-voters somewhere on the left, but also all over the place.
To conclude from that, the future lies in “the centre” is a fallacy, as that ground is due to break up any time, with new crisis and upsetting events taking place in the future.
Simply it seems, that the Greens are turning “pragmatist” now, to do what Greens did in many places in Europe, and hence they have only made temporary or marginal gains, neutralised by losses, ending up with them remaining to be seen as marginal after all.
This is all about “feel good” environmentalism, about token policies, and some tweaks to the existing system, not more or less, I fear.
So be prepared for a wake-up call when polls will be presented over future months and years. The honeymoon for Mr Shaw will not last, certainly not with the media, as one young Mr Sabin already lashed out with comments like, “time to cut out the dead wood” from the Greens.
Plenty of petty little chips at Labour and a rose-tinted approach to a contentious selection. More of the same? Looks depressingly likely.
Actually, despite what you say, I don’t remember any one of the three most recent leadership elections to the Labour leadership being marked by public animosity, whatever the private reservations might have been.
The cracks appeared later on the back of desultory poll results.
How the Greens will fly with Shaw as co-leader remains to be seen. It is possible that he will shake lose a few National waverers. He may lose some of a more left persuasion. To the benefit of Labour or some other Left-credential home, one hopes. But the only game in town is for the Greens to work very closely with Labour, perhaps challenging National to join a more collegial, cross party union in those areas where flipping from one direction to another from election to another is not in the country’s interests. This cover climate change (it shouldn’t be a partisan badge-issue) superannuation, national savings, a less costly (to the individual) legal system, (child) poverty, education, Treaty issues etc.
I wouldn’t hold my breath for accord with an increasingly rash National Party, but the attempt must be made to set up the next two years.
Petty sniping at other opposition parties, in this context, is never okay and should be resisted wherever possible, like in reporting an internal election among the Greens.
One more thing, for all of you who contribute to this blog, think this:
More decision makers than you may imagine (and perhaps fewer than you would wish for) often read contributions to this site.
When you are writing, try writing as if you are in a conversation with someone who has the ear of people who can make a difference, rather than just indulging in a kind of political road rage. What you write might just change a mind or offer a way forward.
With this in mind, I will make one observation. Every single time a spokesperson says something that causes some man or woman out there to say “that’s right! I never saw it that way” you have done good. Every time they say “here we go again”, or “what are they on about?” you have done bad. Let’s try to get more of the former and cut out the latter. It is so easy to focus exclusively on the question of the day and forget the big picture.
When Shaw said I want to persuade Green-leaning National voters to change their vote, his big picture plan was clear. I think we need something as bold and specific from Labour. Don’t imagine that the people will be able to infer direction based on issue-by-issue opposition. If a political party has a plan for a better New Zealand, it shouldn’t be afraid to enunciate it. It help join up much of the Left’s policies and avoids the presumption that your only plan is to take stuff off one section and give it to another.
Holy crap Nick! Are you telling us that some ideas are just SO sacred that they cannot be criticised? That’s a nice thing to see on a left-wing blog. More bloody middle class inertia.
Sorry, I can’t see, after rereading my post what sacred ideas you are referring to. My point was that certainty in a few key areas is a consequence much to be desired (by those who will be subject to policy in those areas). Although, actually, my point was really that the approach would almost certainly be rebuffed by the Nats, which would place Labour and the Greens on the right side of all arguments, leaving National looking more radical and uncollegial.
My other points related to the avoidance of both small minded point-scoring against our own and angry, doctrinaire posts to the advantage of constructive and helpful ones. Ditto public political pronouncements. Politicians should speak not to the choir but to the (sometimes reluctant) congregation.
You are pretty ready with the pejorative epithet, JS. It may be time to consider becoming part of the solution, middle class or otherwise.
It is true….that social movement’s that crystallize into political movements…and find expression in a bonefide recognized political party enter into a Genesis period of migration ….. no movement of any merit stays static and locked in a time capsule .
And that means through external stimuli that the party must adapt to ever changing stimuli. Classically ,…the movement starts off at the grass roots level , with a fundamental base foundation , with aspirations and ideals….then , as time passes ,…becomes consolidated through consensus which goes on to form policy.
It is evident with the Greens….they are no longer 1960’s flower children – if they ever were – they are sophisticated , organised and have many brilliant minds working on the refining of those policy’s to meet current conditions as the years pass .
Which avoids atrophy and being stuck in a time warp of irrelevancy for modern needs.
If in fact they deem it necessary to change the angle of attack to advance those policies so be it.
No harm can come from it.
And even if there is a warming of relations with NZ First – which may or may not be to Labours detriment if they choose not to keep abreast and up with the times , – this can only be good.
Labour will pay the price for being stuck in a time warp whereby the stubborn refusal to eradicate those neo liberals that hold that party back will ultimately be cause for atrophy.
I enjoy reading many of the principles written in Sun Tzu ‘s ‘ Art of War’.
In it , it states ‘ The greatest general is the one who wins the war by NOT fighting ‘….
Indeed…as Act is a mere shadow of itself compared to former days and …really is a the sick man of the NZ political scene, and the Conservatives are approaching irrelevancy , Dunne …who now holds a tenuous position… and the Maori party show signs of quietly playing acquiescence while wanting far more from National in regards social policies…
It would be the supreme act of coup d’etat for both the Greens and NZ First to become the only viable allies left for National in the years to come….
You would see a shift in the Maori party’s so called compliance towards a more leftist stance…
This would isolate ACT – if Act had not already departed….and a slow return towards more traditional NZ Social Democratic values…and a crumbling of the far right political base.
Whether Labour by this time had seen the writing on the wall and upped its game….would remain to be seen…but political animals being as fickle as they often are…almost certainly would see Labour clamoring for a slice of the pie….and finally eradicate those remaining neo liberals from its ranks.
It may make some balk at the idea of traditional Left party’s becoming Nationals only remaining viable political choices…but it would certainly force not only National to halt much of its neo liberal free market ideology’s but to work towards a more mixed and balanced economic base.
That is but one scenario that could be used to effect the demise of the neo liberal dominance…the alternative is a war of attrition , – and not only against National – but among the supposed party’s of the Left that will keep on dividing against themselves until some watershed moment or event arises that crystallizes them into a unified and concerted force.
Thanks for your observations. Just to clarify here, before the AGM, each electorate and branch had meetings where they reached their own consensus on who they wanted their delegates to vote for. So there was a clear consensus approach behind all of this for all members to participate in.
There was also a clear ground swell towards James in the few weeks or so running up I observed. And, there was no animosity I saw at all between members with different opinions. (I understand this is not private info too now.)
All the many Green members I have spoken with are in strong support of James (even I now, who voted elsewhere before hand). A reason for this to me is because the 3 main candidates shared the same core philosophies and stand for what us members want – so if either of them had of won I think you would have seen us being happy (I don’t mention Vernon because he was not considered a serious
contender).
Plus to other viewers here, to assume that voting James in is a step towards being more right-wing, I ask you to do your homework before assuming this incorrect presumption. There is no change in what the Greens stand for. It is still a member driven party, and it still holds on to its progressive social policies. James brings to his role a knowledge of how to speak in economic terms so that he can beat the neb-liberals at their own game of assuming the economic moral high horse. James is anti-neoliberal, and he’s made that absolutely clear in the party and in the last few days in public.
ABC
Comments are closed.