Last Friday there was an article from One News “Green Party may scrap rule requiring male co-leader”
A story on the coming SGM where one of the things the membership will consider is whether to retain the requirement to have a male co-leader or only have a mandated female co-leader in the future.
They may also consider mandating a Maori co-leader, put that in combination with a requirement for a female co-leader and you’re pretty much telling pakeha males this is not the party for you, certainly not if you aspire to political leadership. Replacing one glass ceiling with another.
Before you all get your tiny violins out in recognition of the disadvantages faced by pakeha males don’t forget they are still over a third of the electorate, and the group already least likely to vote for a left wing party. You do want votes right?
Of any group in society the Green Party - politicians, members, supporters probably have the least need for mandated diversity, affirmative action. They are a very diverse group.
If you’re going to get rid of one restriction why not get rid of all of them? If you’re not going to have a female and a male co-leader then why have co-leaders at all?
You’re losing the advantage of having a single leader who could get more cut through with the media, assuming it was the right person, without the benefit of ensuring gender balance.
For James Shaw, when your political party is considering changing it’s constitution so that it doesn’t require a male co-leader, and you are the male co-leader, that may be a hint.
As with other political parties the Greens are a broad church. There are vegan votes, middle-class environmentalist votes, rainbow votes, socially liberal votes, hardline socialist votes, and hippy votes.
But beyond these minority groups the Greens need broader appeal, especially among the young. The objective should be to grow the vote to become a party consistently getting over 15% of the vote. James is a nice man but perhaps not the leader best suited to attract new voters in the way Chloe could.
Alternatively it may be that James wants to move out of the role of his own volition. That in the absence of a candidate with the experience to be male co-leader they are modifying the rules to allow the most obvious change. But if that is the case why not get rid of all restrictions at the same time and be done with it?
So what of the prospects at the next election?
2020 was the Covid election, we all said - yeah fair play the government saved our lives you deserve another go. But 2023 won’t be about Covid, people have moved on, more traditional ambitions will apply across the political spectrum.
There are going to be disgruntled voters on the left this election, grateful to Jacinda and Labour for their handling of Covid, certainly not wanting a change in government, but wanting more progress on left goals. People who expected more to be done in terms of addressing housing affordability and inequality, not a little bit more, not another increment, but big audacious transformational change.
Not even the most loyal Labour supporter would claim this government has been transformative in these areas. No doubt they’ve had a lot to deal with which they have done very well. In Jacinda they have provided the best PM in generations.
But if the next term is post Covid, and likely the last term for the left before the wheel inevitably turns back to the centre right, then those supporters are going to want someone at that table getting as much substantial change as can be achieved.
Nice guy and capable negotiator though he may be that person is probably not James Shaw in the eyes of many supporters. Don’t forget this is also a party of activists whose members don’t like compromise on their ideals. James is nothing if not pragmatic.
To many party members he is not a Rod Donald or a Russell Norman, iconic male co-leaders of the party – a status that is a lot easier achieved as a past leader than as the current one.
Part of the problem is that James is largely invisible in the media. The Greens are a similar size, and have a similar likelihood of playing a major role in the next government but receive nothing like the coverage ACT, and David Seymour in particular, receives. New Zealand First get more coverage and they’re not even in parliament.
Now I’m not saying the Greens should undertake the sort of absurd or deplorable antics David Seymour or Winston Peters are willing to do in order to get attention.
I can’t quite see James explaining as David Seymour did this week that the sudden boost of 50,000 followers ACT got on Instagram were a “sex bot attack” with a straight face.
But they have to do something different; currently if you scroll through the politics sections of our media outlets you’ll find essentially no mention of the Greens. Considering they are about a 50/50 chance of having a significant role, with a number of ministers, in the next government that is not ideal for them or the voting public.
If the leadership looked like it might change in one of the other big three parties, or even in NZF - actually perhaps especially NZF, the media would be all over it. Analyzing the options and how they might impact future coalition agreements or ministerial appointments
James is not of course solely responsible for the lack of media. The sad reality is saying something inflammatory and negative about Labour, or considered to be outrageous by some, gets the attention of the media and these sort of things are not how the Greens conduct themselves.
Plus it is hard to hammer the government for not doing enough on climate change, one of your fundamental differentiators, when you’re the minister for climate change.
James’ big advantage is not scaring the horses. He is seen as a mature, sensible partner for Labour, and doesn’t freak out the business community as badly as some of the other alternatives.
He helps the left block appeal more as a whole to centre voters, but most of those people aren’t going to vote for the Greens. Labour will be out for each and every vote they can get as a party, they will happily eat the Greens’ lunch, and the Greens must do the same if they are to gain more influence in coalition.
The media still seem to think about elections and governments as a two party system rather than as a proportional system where almost every election will result in a coalition grouping. They seem to ignore the possible compositions of those groups and focus on an almost presidential campaign where it is Ardern versus Luxon.
If the Greens get 10% of the vote at the next election and a coalition with Labour they will want concessions. They’re never going with National which rather limits negotiating power but the members will be concerned whether in that scenario James is ruthless enough to negotiate on behalf of their hopes and dreams.
Leading up to the election they’re going to have to say some critical things about Labour not delivering on left wing ambitions, even if they quite like them. They are after the same voters and should strive to get to 20% providing a stronger mandate to negotiate. Members may feel James is not the person for that role.
Chloe may seem a better alternative as sole or co-leader. She has a high profile, and real pulling power with the youth vote. Where James is mild mannered and quietly spoken, she is tenacious and inspiring.
The Greens aren’t going to resort to spin or spreading misinformation about other parties, as others will, they are too nice. They have to appeal through passion and idealism, not fear and lies. Chloe is the right person to reach voters with that appeal.
It is quite possible no change will occur at the SGM, and of course removing the requirement to have a male leader doesn’t mean you can’t have one, just that it’s not mandated. Still it is not hard to imagine this proposal as a possible step towards a post James Shaw leadership team.
yea, hurrah, etc... but i spent more than a decade thru the Norman years and beyond saying exactly these things, in depth, inside, and got very little traction. the "softly softly" approach seems to be ingrained in everything the Greens do, and personally i blame the bureaucratisation of the party for it. that, and the lack of promoting people with balls to be outspoken. Labour at least have the excuse of the back-room unionists for stopping real change; the Greens have only their intangible fear of appearing too woke. and, quite simply, we don't have time for this.
yea, hurrah, etc... but i spent more than a decade thru the Norman years and beyond saying exactly these things, in depth, inside, and got very little traction. the "softly softly" approach seems to be ingrained in everything the Greens do, and personally i blame the bureaucratisation of the party for it. that, and the lack of promoting people with balls to be outspoken. Labour at least have the excuse of the back-room unionists for stopping real change; the Greens have only their intangible fear of appearing too woke. and, quite simply, we don't have time for this.