Claire Browning at Pundit has a piece up about my friend James Shaw, who is the Green Party’s new Wellington candidate. Various excerpts:
He divides his time between jobs in two quite different, some say irreconcilable, worlds. He jets off, from time to time, to fund the months he spends campaigning for the Greens. He is a consultant “focused on helping business leaders formulate and implement sustainable development strategies in their organisations”. More simply: “My international work is centered on assisting a large global bank to become more sustainable (or perhaps, less unsustainable)”
The Greens’ candidate selection process requires him to put his case to party members, who all vote on list rankings. Some have said that they won’t or can’t support him.
Part of what he’s doing at the moment is proving himself to the party on their terms, especially, he suspects, a “hard core of purists … who are deeply worried about the presence in the Party of people who aren’t career campaigners or unionists and fret that this will weaken us rather than strengthen us”.
One recent commenter here on Pundit, a party member, remained unconvinced about whether Shaw himself had any substance, versus quite a lot of style.
As someone who has known James for about twenty years I can set this style over substance issue to rest right now: all the items in his wardrobe were chosen for him by gay friends, his old Italian flat-mate or his ex-girlfriends. He has no actual style of his own.
Claire concludes:
If the Greens can’t embrace the likes of James Shaw— if they can’t build a broad enough church to fit everybody inside of it— the movement may well fail, because this is about us all, and it takes all kinds to save a world.
There’s a not-insignificant proportion of (mostly older) Green activists who are basically Marxist-Leninists who want to use the problem of climate change as a pretext for a socialist revolution – and that’s provoked a huge backlash against the entire concept of environmentalism from the rest of the political spectrum, and made the job of serious environmental change much harder. There’s a huge irony that these activists are rejecting people like James as not being ‘real’ environmentalists.
My take on “real” Greens is they don’t reconcile from the ugly fact that for everyone to live our lifestyle, there is roughly 6 billion to many humans already. No amount of jetting about “helping business leaders formulate and implement sustainable development strategies in their organisations” is going to alter that basic fact.
The problem with most “real” Greens is that their “solutions” to this basic fact usually involve a more or less explicit global human holocaust that would make Hitler look like a misunderstood emo.
Comment by Sanctuary — March 1, 2011 @ 8:09 am
So he got selected as their candidate? Or he’s just in the running?
He sure talks like a management consultant (I can say that as I’m one too)! But the point is bang on – my vote will absolutely go to a modern green-economics and green-planning party but not an old school class warfare party that simply sees environmental harm as a classic excuse to be anti-corporate. Of course I’m just one random chardonnay-bot spamming local comments so they may not be after my vote…
Comment by garethw — March 1, 2011 @ 8:35 am
He’s their Wellington candidate.
Comment by danylmc — March 1, 2011 @ 8:47 am
Well then it seems a bit strange to question if the Greens will be inclusive of “his kind” no? They selected him as their candidate. Or is this a “wider ructions in the Party” thing?
Comment by garethw — March 1, 2011 @ 8:59 am
Never a truer word spoken.
Comment by Gooner — March 1, 2011 @ 9:18 am
A bit pointless being an electorate candidate for the Greens. Where is he on the list? That will tell you everything about his place in the party.
Comment by nadis — March 1, 2011 @ 9:26 am
Gareth, they selected him as the candidate in a very strongly-contested, high-profile seat where he has no hope of winning, and low enough on the list that he’ll only make Parliament if the Greens get more party vote than Labour.
L
Comment by Lew — March 1, 2011 @ 9:28 am
I think you don’t know what you’re talking about Lew because a) maybe you’ve missed this over the last 9 years but none of the Green party candidates aim to win electorate seats. James has won the seat in the country with the highest proportion of Green voters. How is that not a recognition of his abilities? and b)the list is not public yet.
Comment by LucyJH — March 1, 2011 @ 9:41 am
I mean won the right to contest – not actually won…
Comment by LucyJH — March 1, 2011 @ 9:41 am
Lucy, just going on the list ranking as it is currently. If that’s revised I’ll revise my conclusion.
L
Comment by Lew — March 1, 2011 @ 9:48 am
Add to that, he got selected for Wgtn Central over Gareth Hughes, a sitting MP who lives in the electorate. I think that’s a pretty strong endorsement from the party membership.
Comment by Mike — March 1, 2011 @ 9:57 am
Lew, James was at such a low position on the Green Party list for the 2008 election at his own request. He was living in London at the time, and the only reason he stood as a candidate was to galvanise Green support among Kiwi expats living there, not with the hope of being elected.
I’m confident he will have a considerably higher list ranking this time around with him being a “serious” candidate with aspirations to be an MP.
Comment by toad — March 1, 2011 @ 10:09 am
Toad, that’s useful context. Thanks.
L
Comment by Lew — March 1, 2011 @ 10:18 am
Danyl, as an “older” Green activist myself, and one who has been actively involved in the politics of the broader “left” since the 70s, I think I could count on my digits the number of Green activists who have been members of any group that could be described as “Marxist”, and only 4 or 5 who could have been described as “Marxist-Leninist”.
I think you have bought into a myth that the likes of Gooner above perpetuate.
Sure, there is a debate within the Greens as to the extent there should be a market response to carbon emissions (i.e. cap and trade) or a regulatory response (i.e. pigovian taxes and tighter regulation). But I haven’t heard anyone in the Greens arguing that nationalising everything is the answer.
Comment by toad — March 1, 2011 @ 10:21 am
I call bullshit on this. Can you quote a single policy that promotes this ? I’ve been involved in the Greens since 2002, and I haven’t ever come across this cabal of socialists who seek to use the Greens as a vehicle for revolution. Yes, there are plenty of old-school socialists and unionists, some who arrived after the demise of the Alliance. Was the Alliance a revolutionary party ?
The reality is that you can’t address successfully environmental issues without addressing the causes. And that’s where the whole social justice angle comes in – because it’s no use addressing the causes without addressing the social justice aspects of those causes. Socialists join the Greens because there is an alignment of social justice principles, not because the Greens are a vector for revolution.
Comment by Mikaere Curtis — March 1, 2011 @ 10:33 am
Thanks for the wider context Lew and others. I would find it REALLY odd for a Party to select a candidate that they dislike and structure things to screw him over – but that may be why I find most politics REALLY odd…
Comment by garethw — March 1, 2011 @ 10:39 am
And what Mikaere said.
Comment by toad — March 1, 2011 @ 10:45 am
He’s their Wellington candidate … Well then it seems a bit strange to question if the Greens will be inclusive of “his kind” no?
Yes. The post should have and would have discussed this, but it was already over-long.
Comment by Claire Browning — March 1, 2011 @ 10:50 am
Regarding the style (or absence thereof), he spoke very highly of you, too, Danyl, by the way …
Comment by Claire Browning — March 1, 2011 @ 10:54 am
what’s his postion on GE?
I call bullshit on this.
it wouldn’t be unusual for Danyl to be exaggerating a bit, how I see it is the Greens often come across like religious fundamentalists – to avoid the end of the world one must believe what they believe. Linking moral and lifestyle choices to an impending apocalypse has been around for quite a while.
Comment by NeilM — March 1, 2011 @ 11:26 am
“to avoid the end of the world one must believe what they believe”
Isn’t this what all political creatures believe?
National Party MPs don’t their way is the True Way?
Labour MPs are kinda ‘well maybe’ about the value of their beliefs?
Act Party … don’t answer that.
Comment by Robert Guyton — March 1, 2011 @ 11:37 am
I did not know that legislating for social justice was a key tool for preventing damage to the environment. I had a silly notion that, you know, legislating to protect the environment was the key tool.
Comment by JD — March 1, 2011 @ 11:42 am
@Robert Guyton – National MP’s believe that they exist to stop progress. It what their party was set up to do. They don’t have much of a grand vision beyond bag carrying for absentee landlords. Never have, never will.
Comment by Sanctuary — March 1, 2011 @ 11:48 am
“The reality is that you can’t address successfully environmental issues without addressing the causes”
At best Green ideas may be package by the main parties as their own ideas but the Greens themselves will always be irrelevant. This is because even if the Greens are right about an issue international bankers who finance NZ will not tolerate “the addressing of the causes”
Comment by Simon — March 1, 2011 @ 1:10 pm
Shaw clearly has talent. He beat out a sitting MP in an extremely high profile seat, where the Greens get 20% + of the party vote and Kedgley used to get 15% of the Greens electorate vote. If Kedgley had got a few more votes last election, Stephen Franks would be the National MP for Wellington Central. The electorate is clearly one of the most important Green seats.
I understand Gareth Hughes was so gutted about losing that he cried on the night.
Comment by factchecker — March 1, 2011 @ 2:25 pm
I’m pretty sure that since Helen left, he cries himself to sleep every night.
Comment by Pat — March 1, 2011 @ 2:39 pm
Interesting sense of certainty you have there, Pat. I know Gareth Hughes moderately well, and I’m not aware that he even has a friend called Helen.
Comment by kahitakea — March 1, 2011 @ 2:49 pm
“The reality is that you can’t address successfully environmental issues without addressing the causes”
At best Green ideas may be package by the main parties as their own ideas but the Greens themselves will always be irrelevant”
That is true. The main parties do have environmental policies so without the strong social justice side the greens are making themselves more irrevelant. The market based response to climate change won’t help the environmental cause either as the green would lose a lot of support. For instance the Australian greens at the momment are pushing for a high tax on petrol. With cost of living going up who the heck would want want that? Plus that policy would significantly harm the poor.
Comment by K2 — March 1, 2011 @ 3:46 pm
K2 wrote: “The main parties do have environmental policies so without the strong social justice side the greens are making themselves more irrevelant.”
On the contrary. The gap between the Greens and Labour is much bigger on environmental policies than on social justice policies. This is why Sue Bradford’s Members Bills on social justice issues got passed into law under a Labour-led government, whereas no Green Party Member’s Bills on environmental issues ever got passed into law. They all got voted down on first reading, because the Labour Party is much further from the Greens on environmental issues than it is on social justice issues.
Comment by kahitakea — March 1, 2011 @ 4:20 pm
@Kahitakea: Yes I agree with your reasoning however I don’t really think Labour voted against those policies just because of the gap you mentioned but more to do with being pragmatic. Some of the green’s policies would be extremely unpopular with Labour traditional support base (As the federal Aust labour Party are figuring out). As for Sue Bradford (apart from the anti smacking bill) her social justice bills went relatively under the radar and weren’t gong to impact on the major population so it was much easier to vote for.
Comment by K2 — March 1, 2011 @ 6:15 pm
Danyl, you seeing too many conspiracies.
Marxist Leninists infiltrating the Greens? Yeah there are some. Damn all.
How much of their “influence” has infected Green policy to “backlash” about climate concerns? SFA.
Sue Bradford would be the most obvious one and never entered the climate debate in any serious manner.
You accuse DPF at Kiwi Blog of dire machinations. I am sure DPF is quite capable of entertaining, and implementing them. I would be very surprised could be bothered. He is enjoying himself too much.
No, I generally differ from DPF views, I am not one of his fans.
Get a grip, take a break, you are starting to sound like lprent and others at the standard.
This blog should descend to that level.
Comment by peterlepaysan — March 1, 2011 @ 8:43 pm
Sorry! that last sentence should read;
This blog should NOT descend to that level.
Comment by peterlepaysan — March 1, 2011 @ 8:47 pm
The reality is that you can’t address successfully environmental issues without addressing the causes.
What a Marxist Leninist thing to say, Mikaere! Everybody knows that the real way to address environmental issues is through business consultancy firms like Danyl’s mate works for.
Danyl, I’m going to be charitable and assume it’s anger at seeing your mate criticised that has you replicating DPF’s “watermelon” meme.
Comment by Hugh — March 1, 2011 @ 9:44 pm
Danyl old bean you’ve certainly put a full strength espresso in the soy decaffe latte watermelon patch.
Comment by leon — March 2, 2011 @ 6:32 am
> The reality is that you can’t address successfully environmental issues without addressing the causes. And that’s where the whole social justice angle comes in – because it’s no use addressing the causes without addressing the social justice aspects of those causes.
Most Kiwis don’t believe this, will never believe this, and think you’re cheeky for trying to put one over on them so blatantly.
A.
Comment by Antoine — March 2, 2011 @ 7:39 am
Yeah, never seen so many openly Greens posting on this blog
Lew – I misunderstood your comment about list rankings, sorry. On another note – I also have not yet met any Marxist Leninists in the Greens. Maybe they’re in hiding as management consultants 
I have met many people who believe that in a good society there wouldn’t be 200,000 kids living below the poverty line or anybody having to go hungry to pay their bills. But that’s just crazy socialist talk huh? I’ve never missed breakfast for lack of money, why should I worry about those who have?
Comment by LucyJH — March 2, 2011 @ 9:07 am