James Shaw was slightly flummoxed in the weekend when he was asked on TV3's The Nation what he made of being compared to John Key - see the 13-minute Interview with Greens Co-leader James Shaw. The producer of that show later blogged about the Shaw-Key comparison question, saying: "I was pleased we had asked him what he made of being called 'the John Key of the Greens'. It had caused one of those stunned pauses; he clearly didn't know how to take it" - see Tim Watkin's James Shaw as 'The Bachelor'. Can he win hearts?.
Watkins elaborates on the parallels between the two politicians: "Quite apart from the similarities of two men who had been success stories overseas before coming home to serve the country as leaders of their respective parties, Key was famous in his early years for being a voracious learner, eager to rapidly ready himself for high office.... Shaw seems to be taking the same, smart approach".
Shabnam Dastgheib reports that Shaw rejects the Key comparison, saying Shaw "thought the idea that he was a green version of John Key was strange. 'I don't know how that got started. I come from a business background, I don't really see the comparison otherwise'." - see: New Greens co-leader James Shaw challenges PM on climate change.
In a previous column about the Green leadership race, I asked: "Is Shaw the 'John Key of the Greens'? As a moderate, pragmatic politician with charisma and freshness, he's akin to the 'John Key of the Greens' - someone who might be able to transform the party into something less scary to centrist voters. With a successful background in the business world, he would have more appeal to what he calls middle New Zealand" - see: Greens battle over ideology and identity.
Both politicians are extremely good communicators, good-looking, and have a decent dollop of charisma. Unlike the leaders they replaced, both men are much more positive than negative in their messages and personas. More than that, they are mainstream-orientated, professing a post-ideological desire to move beyond old principles such as left and right. They are modernising forces who have seemingly come out of nowhere.
A Green game changer
There seems to be a consensus that James Shaw will be a "game changer" for the Greens, with Patrick Gower writing about this back in March - see: James Shaw - The 'Green-changer'.
For the most comprehensive analysis of how much the Greens are changing - and how much more they might transform under Shaw's direction - see Newstalk ZB journalist Alex Braae's Once Were Radicals. He explains how the Greens have shifted beyond the party's more anti-Establishment background, and how the Green politicians now want to be part of the Establishment, working on the inside.
According to Braae, the party under Shaw will be all about engaging with business and the powerful: "The image - still maintained by many - of Green MPs as a wild bunch, is simply false and out of date. A Green Party under the co-leadership of James Shaw wouldn't spook the markets or spark a capital flight from New Zealand if they became part of government".
Could Shaw manage the contradictions of making the Greens more Establishment while others in the party remain radical? Braae says that the necessary compromises and deal-making could prove not only the downfall of Shaw, but the party itself: "And if he can't hold the party together, it may be that we have just witnessed the beginning of the end of the Greens as a serious political force".
Chris Trotter is much more positive about Shaw's chances and says "It is difficult to overstate the magnitude of Shaw's success" - see: The Talented Mr Shaw. Trotter is particularly taken with Shaw's clever strategy and positioning of the Greens and he praises Shaw's post-ideological speech to the Greens in the weekend.
However, according to Richard Harman, much of Shaw's well-reported post-ideological speech was actually written by the Green spin doctors for whoever won: "a substantial part of Mr Shaw's speech had been drafted well in advance ready for whoever won the leadership. Not many political parties could get away with that. It is a demonstration of how far this party has come and maybe a portent of how far it might go" - see: Shaw's election suggests new era for Greens.
To get a sense of how ambitious Shaw is to revamp his party, see Brook Sabin's Shaw promises big changes. Shaw is promising to "quadruple the size of the party membership within two years - from 6000 to 24,000", as well as modernising the demographic makeup of his caucus.
Similarly, see Pattrick Smellie's New Greens co-leader wants MoU with National. According to Smellie, "Shaw says his job is to 'change the party' to prepare it for government rather than opposition, and 'articulate economic policy that goes beyond both capitalism and socialism'." Hinting at tension in the party, Smellie also suggests that Shaw's "comments struck a different tone from female co-leader Metiria Turei, who yesterday said there would be 'no radical shift in direction'."
Hamish Rutherford also explains how non-radical the new co-leader appears: "the 42-year-old Shaw does not fit the caricature of a Green Party MP. Forget the hemp suits and dreadlocks worn by former MP Nandor Tanczos; Shaw donned Rodd & Gunn shirts in leadership meetings. Since he entered Parliament, almost every major right wing commentator has signalled how much easier it would be for National to work with him than Russel Norman" - see: Green Party gambles on James Shaw.
A shift to the right?
Will James Shaw drag the Greens to the right? Definitely not according to Gordon Campbell, who says: "Meet James Shaw: Green, Not Too Weird". By this he means that the party has chosen Shaw because he has the ability to "make the centre feel more comfortable about shifting towards the Greens. Essentially, it should be harder to stigmatise the Greens as loony left" - see: On the Greens' new co-leader, James Shaw.
Shaw is certainly on the right of the Green caucus. One recent blog post on The Ruminator reports on an interview with him prior to being elected co-leader in which he says he's not leftwing (he rejects the usefulness of the left-right divide) - see: It's not easy being Green (while running for male co-leader).
Perhaps more significantly, the blog post reports "James waxed lyrically about the Big Kahuna". This refers to Gareth Morgan's book proposing radical tax and welfare reform, including introducing a lower single rate flat tax and abolishing welfare in favour of a universal basic income for everyone.
This raises the question of whether Shaw will now be pushing for the Greens to adopt lower taxation and welfare reform policies. Of course, the Greens have already been heading in a more orthodox economic direction under Russel Norman. In fact, Richard Harman reports that in the weekend Norman gave a speech advocating lower company and personal income tax - see Richard Harman's Shaw's election suggests new era for Greens.
Critics on the left have already signalled their concern about the potential new rightwing direction under Shaw. For example, leftwing blogger Steven Cowan complains that Shaw's anti-ideology positioning really just amounts to more "green capitalism" - see: The right stuff.
The Greens new orientation to National
Another left critic, John Minto, argues that Shaw's recruitment of "mostly blue-greens - Remuera mums" into the party will inevitably cause the Greens to take on a more favourable orientation to governing arrangements with National - see: Cargo cult election for the Greens?.
But could the Greens under Shaw really do a deal with National? Both leftwing columnist Gordon Campbell (On the Greens' new co-leader, James Shaw; and rightwing columnist Liam Hehir (Shaw faces challenge leading Greens; argue that it would be crazy for the Greens to do so. Hehir does say, however, that we shouldn't take Shaw's avowals against such deals made during the leadership campaign too seriously: "When jostling with the other candidates, you tell the base what they want to hear and reassure them that you are an ideological fellow traveller. Once you have the leadership secured away, however, things reset and you become free to be the hardheaded pragmatist you always really were".
Tim Watkin also thinks that the Green stance about supporting a National government could change: "At the moment Shaw says the party's "highly unlikely" position remains the same, but behind the scenes there's a recognition that with a new leader, comes a new approach" - see: James Shaw as 'The Bachelor'. Can he win hearts?.
But according to Rob Hosking, there's a very strong reason why the Greens can never support a National government: "The emerging political divide in New Zealand is increasingly between the National view of the economy, and use of natural resources in particular, and the Green view. Issues such as Resource Management Act reform, how water use is governed, and matters such as New Zealand's expensive transport infrastructure, exploration and use of minerals, to say nothing of the development of and offshore exclusive economic zone for economic benefit, are where the conflicts will come over the next 15 years" - see: Why calling James Shaw 'right wing' misses the point (paywalled).
Finally, to read the varied reactions on Twitter to Shaw's election on Saturday, see my blog post, Top tweets about James Shaw becoming new Green co-leader.
