W Minus 54: Time to Line Up and Shift into Gear
I started writing this blog as a response to a comment made by Daryl Vernon to a post from Matthew Day on another thread, but given that I seem to have meandered away from the topic of that thread, I’ve decided to post this as a new blog post of my own. To read Daryl’s original comment, please see "deserve it"
----
Daryl, I don’t think that Matthew was advocating for a "180 degree" change in direction for the Party...I think that he was only pointing out that unless the GPC was ready to make that kind of radical change, targeting a Conservative stronghold for E. May to run in would not achieve the result of having our Leader elected. I’m not going to offer an opinion on whether I agree with that assessment or not, as I’m still in the process of formulating it, but I wanted to point out that I don’t believe Matthew is calling for that kind of change at this point, given the limited amount of time we have to make the change.
With regards to the GPC being poised on a cliff top, at risk of falling into the abyss should, in the coming election, we fail to elect anybody, I have this to offer. I believe that we are clearly at risk, and that, unless planning for the next election quickly shifts into high gear now, the damage will be irreversible. Indeed, I fear that fundamental damage was already done to our Party during the last election.
Consider for a moment what might happen in a fall election. Without any sitting MP’s, and after having failed at electing anyone just over a year ago, will the media consortium in charge of the Leader’s debate allow Elizabeth May to participate in a televised debate? I hope I’m wrong about this, but really, I can’t see it happening. The only thing we have going for us right now is that we’ve achieved over 2% of the popular vote, which takes us out of "fringe party" status in the eyes of some, but not many. With just over 6% of the popular vote in the last election after polling in the 10% range, does it remain a fair question for Canadians and our media to wonder if we’re a serious party or not?
If Elizabeth isn’t in the debates, look for our popular vote percentage to fall back to around the 5% mark. Why? Well, the media is already making this next election into a contest between only Harper and Ignatieff. With a new Liberal Leader, all eyes will be on Ignatieff, and the media will spend an incredible amount of time and energy in determining whether or not he’s up to the job. Harper, too, will command the media’s attention in a different way, with the media asking (and answering) the question, is it time for him to go? This clash between Conservatives and Liberals will be the theme of the election. All other stories will be just snippets in support of the main theme. Sure, the media might pretend it’s about the economy, or about EI, but in reality and in their coverage, it will be about Harper vs. Ignatieff.
None of the above, I should say, applies to Quebec, which has a completely different dynamic.
So, we’re in trouble, as is the NDP. The NDP, at least, is aware of this situation, and are trying to do something about it by floating the idea of changing their name, looking for ways to "renew" their Party in the eyes of the media, and maybe in the voter’s eyes too. Aside from dumping their Leader (which they will do after this election), how else will the NDP muscle their way onto the Harper/Ignatieff stage in the next election?
At least the NDP can count on continuing to elect MP’s in certain ridings, but look for their overall riding count to drop in the next election, as they are vulnerable to a resurgent Liberal Party in some of the new ridings they have claimed (in Northern Ontario, for example, look for the Liberals to take back many of the seats they lost here; the Liberals have already committed to holding their end of summer MP/Senate retreat here in Sudbury...coincidence? I think not. The Liberals will be targeting Sudbury and other Northern ridings for gain from the NDP...and the NDP will be doing all that they can to hold onto these beach-heads. It’s going to be a Red/Orange war on the ground here when the writ is dropped).
Without Elizabeth May in the debates, and without much in the way of national media coverage, and with diminishing local media coverage as a result of media-convergence, our voice is going to be a very difficult one to have heard by voters. Unless we have a coherent and focussed campaign, one in which our limited and quieted voices are all shouting the same easily-understood message, in the same key, we’re not going to have a chance. Co-ordination between the Leader’s campaign and all of the smaller campaigns, especially those in our top ridings, will be paramount.
If we go into the next election in the same way we went into the last one, we can expect similar results...but not the same. At least in the last election, the Green Party was perceived as somewhat new, untested, with a Leader that people wanted to know more about. And so the media devoted some coverage to our Party, and Elizabeth May’s name was shouted across the country when she was excluded from the debate.
Going into the next election, we will not have those advantages. The Green Party will be that party that failed in the last election. The media won’t bother wasting as much time with a failed Party out their on the fringes of common sense, especially when a more compelling narrative exists: Harper v. Ignatieff. As a result, voters will tune us out, especially if our messaging is off-key. If we spend too much time issuing press releases and discussing our Health Care policies, or our stance on Afghanistan, we will be in trouble, because frankly, we’re not going to grab much in the way of media attention on those issues.
We will need to stick to our core themes: 1) The Environment (especially with Copenhagen around the corner) 2) Democratic renewal (which has an off-shoot: electing our Leader to Parliament). We will need to continue to cultivate our core voters with the range of issues they will expect us to discuss: legalized marijuana, safe food and product labelling, peace, carbon tax, and nothing nuclear. But the more we drift in the media away from the those top two issues, the more diffuse our voice will be, and we’re already going to be challenged to receive coverage anyway.
Some may say that we can counter this loss of mainstream-media attention through alternative media, especially amongst younger voters. To only a very small degree would I agree. Mainstream media continues to dominate when it comes to shaping the attitudes of the electorate. If CTV and CBC say that this election is about Harper and Ignatieff, than that’s what it will be about, in the same way that they said that the last election was about "nothing", until part-way through when they declared it was about the economy.
So, what about falling off of that cliff?
Now, it’s true, with my assessment, I’m making some assumptions in my model here: I’m assuming that Elizabeth May is going to be shut out of the debates, and in the model I’m discussing, our popular vote percentage decreases for all of the reasons I’ve mentioned above. Where does that leave the Party?
Surely, our Leader will have to go, after failing in two elections to have even herself elected. So, she’ll be gone, and more than likely much of the infrastructure she’s put into place will also get the boot, so we’ll be into a bit of a rebuilding phase for a while. We’ll also see our revenues cut, with fewer votes generating money. And, likely we’ll be carrying debt, as we’ll have had to pour money into this election...because there isn’t any choice here.
With a new leader, whether or not she or he is dynamic to Greens, there’s very little chance that they’re going to have the national profile of our existing leader. No offence to anyone who is thinking about stepping up should this scenario play itself out, but I don’t think that there are other stars in our Party who had the kind of pre-Leadership media presence that Elizabeth May had when she became our leader. And without that kind of presence, where will the Party be?
In economic difficulty, on the decline with voters, with an untried leader no one has heard about...all the while the other Parties take bits and pieces of our ideas, and tell the media that they’re doing good work on the environment and other issues important to Canadians. Whether or not they are will be meaningless, only that they are seen to be doing good.
And, given that the next election will likely produce a minority government situation, we’ll have little time to regroup and regenerate before we’re into another election; maybe 2 years if we’re lucky. Better for us as a Party would be a majority Conservative government, which could truly screw up the country even further given four years to implement their own Agenda. Although I think most of us would cringe at that prospect.
Either way, we Greens face the prospect of withering on the vine. Already, our credibility has taken a big hit with the media, and with voters, if recent polls are to be believed. We haven’t used this time to find an issue or two which resonates with Canadian voters. Instead, we’ve been doing a lot of navel gazing. We pinned our hopes that the Democratic Renewal issue would bring us to the forefront, with E. May’s book and with STV in BC at the polls in May. It might have worked, had STV passed. That would have been our issue to own this summer in the media. Instead, there have been only passing blips about election reform. No resonance there.
Admittedly, any message from Greens would have been hard to find resonance with voters, given our failure to breakthrough into the big leagues in the last election. No MP’s really hurt our credibility and our image. If we do the same again, Greens, it’ll be all over except for the dying.
Right now, having squandered this past year to infighting when we should have been getting our message out and building our local infrastructure, it is absolutely critical that we pick ourselves up by our bootstraps and start the campaign. Right now.
But...we’re not quite ready yet, are we? Look, it’s no secret that we are expecting the writ to drop on Sunday, October 4th, after the Liberals and NDP have defeated the government on a September 28th confidence vote. We’ve heard about a Campaign Plan, and seen the priorities, but there haven’t been any details about how to get there. For example, we’ve heard that there will be more focussed messaging, but we’ve not seen what it will be, nor have many of us been tapped on the shoulder to provide input. We’ve heard that we’re going to have a slogan, but we’ve not seen it. We’ve been invited to donate money to help Elizabeth May get elected, but we still don’t know where she’s going to run. We’ve not heard anything about a media strategy. We’ve not seen any materials for candidates to assist them in answering questions from voters and local media. And it’s now the middle of August.
This time out, it’s imperative that our voices be as one. Our federal campaign clearly has to take the lead, and not just because their the ones with most of the resources. Electing our Leader is an identified priority, and I should add a priority which I clearly support. Elizabeth May is going to get the lion’s share of Green coverage in the next election. She’s the leader. She and her people have got to lead the charge here, and the other candidates around the country need to fall in line and speak with her, as one body politic.
And where are those candidates? Rules from the Campaign Committee came out in March of this year, and EDA’s were to have candidates in place by June. Whether or not we agreed with the rules, or with the specific timing (and we here in Sudbury agreed with neither), it is incumbent upon EDA’s to be prepared for an election. Yet we have only a hand-full of candidates in place! Why on earth have we allowed this to happen? Yes, we EDA’s might disagree with the way in which things were handled by the Federal Party here, but their goal was a sensible one: have candidates in place so that the summertime could be used to promote those candidates locally. Instead, we focussed on the disagreements.
And many believed, and continue to believe, that it doesn’t matter, that maybe this isn’t the time for our Party anyway, so we’ll show up and fight the good fight, but perhaps we’ll make it better if we change direction, get a new Leader, devote more money to staff resources to build EDA’s, and then maybe next time out we’ll do better, or the time after that.
Problem is, there won’t be a next time. Like it or not, our time is Now.
Look, I’m all for more resources to build EDA’s, and I think we need some renewal within the Party. I’m certainly unimpressed with a lot which has gone on in the past year, and I’m an advocate for changing that. But I also know that we either put aside our differences and fight the next election with the direction we’ve committed to, or it’s all over. Whether you’re like me and are unhappy with things, or whether you’re like others who are completely ticked-off with the direction of the Party elite, it doesn’t matter. We have to pull together, or this ship will sink.
I know others don’t share my assessment. Others believe that the Party is strong enough to survive another shut-out. Many of those others believe that we will at least increase our popular vote in this next election, even if we don’t elect anyone. Others believe that our popular vote will increase over time, as young voters (who tend to be supportive of Green policies) mature and start showing up at polling stations in greater numbers.
I don’t share that level of optimism, because a withering Party will be written off by the electorate. In a situation of decline, the centre will not hold, and things will break down, pieces will break off. Our good policies will be taken by the other Parties, looking for a strategic edge over each other (not primarily because they make sense). Our members will abandon us because we’re not achieving results. The media will ignore us, unless it’s to report on our in-fighting (but even that’s not a sure thing...look at the lack of national coverage the collapse of the Alberta Greens generated).
Whether you disagree with my assessment or not, Greens, I urge you to line up behind the National Campaign. If you don’t agree with me, and If I’m wrong, well, the worst outcome would be that by speaking with one voice, we’ll increase our chances of winning.
Campaign Committee: I hope you’re hearing the voices of dissatisfaction out here across Canada. You’ve got to get things together now. Right now. We on the ground need more out of you. Your silence is causing considerable concern. Just look at these discussions we’ve been having here. Multiply that by one hundred, for every electoral district association meeting where we scratch our heads and wonder aloud what direction we’ll be going in this fall.
Elizabeth May: I’m a fan of yours, and I have an incredible amount of respect for your intellect and your energy. Please, it’s time to make that hard choice. Choose a riding, and kick things into high gear. Ensure that our message will be focussed on our strengths. Understand that our voice is going to be limited in the upcoming election, an that we have to speak as one locally and nationally.
EDA’s: Get your candidates nominated. Start the ball rolling locally with letters to the editor, showing up at events, etc. Do all the good things that you know that you need to do, and ask for help when and where you need it. And not just from your Organizer. Call up the CEO of a neighbouring organization, or write to one of the bloggers here who seem to have an idea or two. Cross-communicate.
Greens: Show support to local candidates by showing up at events. Stay involved with local organizations that share our values. Get active in promoting an event in your area for World Environment Day on October 24th. The key people in your local Association are getting burnt out already, and an election hasn’t even been called yet. Step up and fill in a niche locally, even if it’s not with the EDA. Make connections in your community. Get involved with something that’s important.
It’s W Minus 54 (54 days until the Writ is dropped). We have to gear up now, or the Party really will be over on E-Day.
- Steve May's blog
- Login to post comments
Search
Recent Comments
- John Shavluk |
- Bram Kivenko |
- John Shavluk |
- David Parker |
- David Barclay |
- 1 of 1854
- ››
Email Updates:
Media Releases
- Media Release | 08-Mar-2010
- Media Release | 08-Mar-2010
- Media Release | 05-Mar-2010
Comments
Enough with the Jiminey Cricketism
Steve:
I took the effort to read your entire post. But if you really want people to read your blog, you really should make smaller posts.
Three quick points about Elizabeth May. She has damaged the party by focusing on how evil Steven Harper is. This just gives people a reason to vote strategically. Second, because of her fixation on getting people into parliament, she has undermined the well-established idea that the Green Party is a different type of political organization. By doing so, she has burnt through an enormous amount of political capital we once owned. Finally, her and the people she brought into the party have dragged our policy Leftwards to the point where we are now pretty much the "NDP on steroids". This again, has burnt out our political credibility because it now means that our numbers no longer make any sense at all when we put forward our platform.
One big point. Several times in various blogs I have seen reference to how great an EDA Guelph is. One person pointed out that it is probably the only riding where May has a realistic chance of getting elected. But at the same time I see people say over and over again that we "have to focus on getting people elected" instead of building EDAs. To that I say, <strong>the only way we will ever get anyone elected is buy building strong EDAs.</strong> And given the large number of institutional biases in our society against the Green Party, we will never be able to compete with the "big boys" by playing the game according to the same rules that they do. This means <strong>that the only way we can build a strong EDA is by becoming involved in grassroots activism and organizing.</strong>
It drives me nuts to hear people praising how strong Guelph is while at the same time refusing to try and follow our example---.
The Choice is: Now or Never.
Bill, as always I appreciate your comments. And I’m going to try to take your comments regarding blog-length to heart from here-on in. Just not with this post...
Thing is, Bill, I don’t disagree with much of what you’re saying, although I may have a slightly different perspective on the contributions our Leader has made to this Party (while at the same time acknowledging that we have moved away from the "neither left nor right but forward" paradigm and have become, as you have indicated, the "NDP on steroids", which really is problematic from a political point of view).
And while this might come as a surprise to you, I also agree that more time and effort and resources need to be put into building strong EDA’s. How can I not? I look around here at my own, fairly new EDA, and I see us losing key people as a result of (in my opinion) dumb policy directions and the iron-fist of the Central Party. As a result, we are less well positioned to do the work necessary to build our association. We’re in a holding pattern here in Sudbury, in my opinion, trying to just hold on to where we were this time last year, when there was at least optimism that an election would bring results for the Party somewhere in Canada.
Obviously my national view is tainted by what I see on the ground here. But it also conforms to what I’ve been hearing from elsewhere. Clearly, we’re a Party in trouble.
I know that you are an advocate for building EDA’s, even at the expense of electing our Leader. Your concern is that resources are being mis-allocated by the Central Party at the expense of giving EDA’s a hand-up in building strong local organizations. You and I have mixed it up in the past on this over a few threads now.
For those of you following along at home, I think it’s fair to say that my "world view", which Bill refers to as "Jiminey Cricketism", is completely influenced by my inward belief that if we don’t elect someone in the upcoming election, the Party is over. Bill, more optimistically, I believe, doesn’t hold that view, and believes that there will remain a viable Party if we don’t elect someone, but a strong change in direction is needed if we’re going to ever experience success. That change starts with using our resources to build local associations, as they have done in Guelph. It also means (correct me if I’m wrong on this, Bill), changing our politics, shifting them back to the "neither left nor right but forward" paradigm, and away from the "NDP on steroids".
And again, I agree with Bill, we must do both. Where we part ways is that I don’t believe there will be much of a Party left in the future unless we get our act together now and elect someone, somewhere, to parliament this time out.
Bill has indicated in the past that he thinks that it’s dangerous for the Party everytime someone like me expresses an opinion that we have to focus both on electing someone and building strong EDA’s, because he believes we can’t do both, and have been doing a good job at neither. I believe we haven’t been doing a good job at either, and that the ultimate focus needs to be on building those EDA’s. But only if we can elect someone this time out, else it won’t really matter.
Which is why I’m now expressing my loss of patience with a middling approach, and believe that time has come to put all of our energies into running an effective campaign, both federally and locally. Yes, it means that there will have to be a bit of a mad scramble, and in that process, many EDA’s will be left behind (they won’t know how to use GRIMES to build a database for the future; they won’t receive a level of training needed on how to ask for money, or budget, or run an effective campaign). Yes, it’s pretty lousy that we find ourselves in this situation, but nevertheless, here we are.
So again, it’s time to move forward and line up for this Campaign, no matter the lousy starting position. It’s now or never for the Green Party.
How to destroy a fledgling EDA---
If people want to destroy a fledgling EDA I can give you a prescription.
First, tell everyone that our candidate has a chance of winning, even if there is no objective reason to believe this. This will allow you to follow the second element of destroying the EDA.
That is, get everyone to believe that unless they give their absolute maximum effort, that the candidate will fail. This will ensure that people give more effort that they really can afford. This will ensure that your most idealistic and supportive members will be totally burnt out after the election. They will be depressed because they thought that their candidate could win if they did everything right and that the world would end if she didn't. That meanst that the world is now going to end and it is their fault because they didn't try hard enough. This means that they will probably not be able to do anything productive for the EDA for a very long time---if ever again.
Finally, define politics so narrowly that whenever someone suggests a special event or project that is not immediately related to getting someone elected, that it is dismissed as a distraction or "not what we are about". This will ensure that the group will no longer be bringing in new people to the organization, have any fun, raise its profile outside of the small percentage of the population who actually likes politics, or, learns anything new outside of the "conventional wisdom" put forward by professional politicians.
Follow the above strategy and the party will die very quickly. Oh, yes, that is also the program suggested by just about all the Jiminey Crickets in the party.
Requesting a Clairifcation of Comments
Bill, as you’ve on more than one occasion in the past identified me as one of the leads in the Jiminey Cricket chorus, and as you know that I am the CEO of the Sudbury EDA, am I to take this latest post of yours as a personal attack on how we here in Sudbury managed the last campaign? Because that's what your blog post looks like to me.
Contrary to what you might have heard, the campaign here in Sudbury was, in my opinion, fairly balanced. While we faced the numerous challenges other EDA’s across the country face, I think we did a pretty good job of providing just the right amount of motivation to our local volunteers, who did not labour under the notion that our candidate’s loss would be worn by them. Indeed, I recall the atmosphere, even on election night, to be good-natured, and volunteers were commended for a job well-done.
Further, in terms of "narrowly defining politics" to the point of precluding party-building efforts, I can state with certainty that’s not something we’ve been doing here in Sudbury. Our participation in numerous events where we were the only political party present is a clear indication in my mind that we’re doing many things right on the ground here in Sudbury.
Now look, I’m not at all suggesting that we don’t have a long way to go yet, because clearly we do, and we can certainly learn from the other, more successful EDA’s which have been at things a lot longer than we have been here in Sudbury.
If it was your intention to attack the efforts to build our EDA which have been underway here in Sudbury now for about a year and a half, I have to inform you that I take extreme offence, and would strongly caution that you may wish to become more informed before going further in that direction. And if you have anything to say specifically about my Association here in Sudbury, or about me, I suggest that you may wish to have that conversation with me in person sometime.
If your statement was intended to be general in nature, you may wish to identify it as such, as I’ve clearly got my hackles up over your post here. The thing is, I don’t disagree with what you’ve written in a general way. I’d go on to add that it’s not helpful when the Central Party is also determined to crush local initiatives, such as when they determine a candidate selection process will be undertaken. And I’d also suggest that the addition of new, and in my opinion, not very well thought out policies to our already over-bloated list of policies is also very problematic, as we’ve created a situation where there now appears to be a single policy somewhere which is guaranteed to turn Party members off.
I sincerely hope that you spend a moment to clarify your comments.
A general comment, nothing else---
Actually Steve, the EDA I had in mind was Guelph more than anything else. We are badly damaged right now due to Jiminey Cricketism and it is going to take years to get back to the point where we were before the last federal election cycle.
I really do mean it when I say it burns out your volunteers when you start indulging in fantasies about electing people before there is any objective hope in doing so.
Bill, ...
... do you mean some Guelph Greens' fantasies, or those put upon them by others?
Did so many of you really all feel on the cusp of winning? If so, would the by-election context rug being pulled from under you not have been more damaging than any inept "strategic voting" talk nationally? I really would like to hear what you say. I really would like to see Mike back in it, too, unless there are strong personal reasons for not running. Here's what i asked at http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/2619/2009-05-19/questions-green-party-s-e... : "but is Mike really not going to run? i recall being told by him that failure to breach double digits would indicate "enough" for him -- but @>20%, is the exasperation that bad?"
Underpromise and over deliver..
Managing expectations is important. Always, and in any shared endeavour. It sounds like you need some really swinging house Parties to get people back together again. You should really consider it Bill, because if you are right, then you need to re-invigorate. Enough time has gone by that people will have gotten over their depression, and many will be ready to re-fight old battles, and re-acquaint. I don't want to be preachy, or give you unwanted advice, but I have always held that politics has to be fun, and the personal connections and bonds formed by common experiences are the glue that builds the team.
We've all been there before, good luck to you and all of Guelph.
It's going to take more than a few parties---
It's going to take more than a few house parties to deal with the thousands of dollars in lost income from the key volunteers who took time off from work----. As I said to Daryll, I don't think you guys have a clue about what goes into mounting a professional campaign.
Don`t be a drag
You make some assumptions, like your experience is unique, and nobody has ever made genuine sacrifices. If your preference is to cry woe is me, then be my guest. If you actually want to pick up the pieces, then it wouldn`t be a bad idea to start reconnecting all those people who poured their hearts out, many at your behest.
As far as mounting a professional campaign, I do in fact know what goes into it. You should by now as well. What goes into it is a lot of effort from a substantial body of volunteers. The structure is important too, but you`re nowhere if you aren`t able to motivate volunteers. IMHO that`s the cardinal political virtue.
From what you wrote above, Guelph is in danger of losing this capacity, so it`s up to you, and the rest of the Guelph exec. to do something about it. I won`t plague you with any further unasked advice, since you clearly already know all the answers.
So in other words never think strategically or long term----
So in other words, all we need to do is get on the phone one more time and people will make more sacrifices. To Hell with thinking long term. To Hell with trying to think sustainably about our organization. Just strip mine it ever time there is another election.
And how, pray tell, does this make us any different from any other party?
Don't put words into my mouth
Where the hell did that come from?
'In other words' is cheesy politics. You have misrepresented what I have written twice now, in order to cast it in a negative light. Whatever for? Perhaps you need to get a good nights sleep or something, because you're not reading before commenting.
You don't say it, but the implication is the problem
It isn't what you say, but the implication of the policy you promote. People on this list are saying that we need to give our maximum effort to elect people in the next election cycle or else the party is going to fall apart. When I counter that this means we will be strip mining our EDAs, the response is that we just aren't doing a good enough job to motivate our members and that we should have more parties! That certainly is a decision to stop any sort of long-term planning.
People in the Greens blah-blah-blah about thinking terms of seven generations, but when it comes to thinking long term for the party we aren't any different from any other party. The longest people can think is to the next election cycle.
When did so many people in the Greens start thinking just like members of all the other mainstream parties? Why not just join the Liberals if your political instincts are exactly the same?
Policy, Political Party, Electing Members, Approach
I like think we can all be friends in this party. We all know we are a political party. All political parties exist in large part to elect members to the House of Commons. I don't think many members think we should only strive to be activists, leveraging the generous public subsidies given to political parties and totally ignore trying to get our member elected.
Where we differ form the other parties is in our policy and platform. Our members develop our policy and our platform must respect our policy. Long term / seven generation thinking is part of what makes our policy different that other parties.
We do not differ from other political parties in wanting to elect at least some members since that is the essence of why a political party exists. There can be debate about how many we should want to elect, just a few, 12-20, official opposition, government.
Also, the approach we take can surely be debated. Should we concentrate on building up our ridings or should we concentrate our resources to improve the chances of electing members.
The way our party is structured and operates, these decisions are generally driven based on the Leader of the day. The Leader is elected on a platform and the party naturally will be shaped to deliver on the Leader's promises. To resist the mandate of the Leader leads to a dysfunctional organization. The Leader is accountable to the membership.
Rob Brooks
Hull-Aylmer
I am not 'people on this list'
Bill;
I disagree with you on several points. First, and the most irritating, is when you make assumptions that because I write something similar to something else you've read, that I subscribe to a whole range of opinions with which you disagree. If you want to criticise me, please criticise what I actually said.
I would be willing to bet good money that no Greens will get elected in this fall's election. That includes Elizabeth running in SGI. That doesn't mean we shouldn't use some of our resources to try. The Party will survive just fine without an immediate win. We'd do better if fortuna smiled upon us with a win though.
I never, ever said that our maximum effort should be put into electing people NOW. Even if we had a good shot at a couple of ridings, the localised effort would (or should) only take up a fraction of the resources available centrally.
As you pointed out, there are only perhaps a few dozen Greens who have ever had a meaningful role in a professional campiagn. If we do target ridings nationally, then we are building a small corp of experienced campaign managers, chairs, etc. who will understand that a real campaign is about co-ordinating a lot of people towards a single objective. There is no teacher like experience, no matter how painful the learning experience may be. Elections come periodically, and they offer a fantastic opportunity to harvest resources of every kind. That's what makes the next election, and indeed every election a critical event. They are the short and medium run events on the road to our ultimate and long term successes, and we have to learn from the past to squeeze the most juice possible out of every electoral opportunity.
That does not entail strip mining anybody, so why would you make such an assertion? If you believe that I am implying something, instead of putting the words into my mouth, you should point out what you think the implications are. That way, I can make a rational response, and clarify, or refute.
As far as having more parties, you seem to be denigrating the idea. I have been active in politics for awhile now, and through experience I can assert that having more parties and social interaction builds much stronger relationships within the EDA. You posted that you had major burnout issues in Guelph, so based on experience I suggested you use what is an effective means to draw your vol's back together. Do or don't as you see fit, but don't puke all over me for suggesting it.
W minus 53: Time for Action.
Matthew, I think it’s great of you to share your comments with the rest of us here. I now have a better understanding of where you are coming from in this "debate" about resources (as Rob identifies it). Now, given that you’ve predicted that we won’t elect a single MP in the next election, this may sound kind of funny: I wish that I shared your optimism.
From my post, above, you can see that my starting point in this debate is that I believe that the Party will be in serious trouble unless we elect someone, somewhere, in the next election. "Trouble" here means: financial difficulties; decreased support from voters; increased lack of attention from traditional mainstream media; party members abandoning the Party. In short, a slide back to the fringes, and increased irrelevancy.
That’s where not electing anyone will lead to, in my opinion.
And that means that all of the good work which Bill wants to see the Party undertake will be meaningless, in my opinion. I don’t think Bill would see it that way, because building an organization on the ground, locally, riding by riding is really the only way that we’re ever going to generate real, meaningful support. Hoping that we can simply win through the "Air War" (your term, I think) are guaranteed to fail (as you’ve indicated; air war and ground war need to be co-ordinated).
As a result of my concern about the Party’s slide into irrelevancy, a concern I might add which does not appear to be shared by many here, I’ve no choice but to conclude that every effort must be made during this election to win a seat, somewhere. And that’s why I’m largely supportive of the Campaign Committee’s plan to focus our message and expend the lion’s share of resources strategically. I’d just like to see the meat of the Plan laid out for the lion, though, as we’re at W-53 today, and I’m growing rather anxious.
Bill has expressed a concern that this kind of approach could be very detrimental to actually building successful and sustainable EDA’s. He is probably right. The EDA’s targeted by the Party for the lion’s share of resources are going to be in for one heck of a rough ride. Think about it: all of the Party’s hopes are going to be pinned on those half dozen ridings. Fully-funded campaigns will put our volunteers on the ground in those Districts through the meat grinder. Failure to achieve the results...what might that mean from the perspective of the Party, and how might a volunteer experience that failure on a very personal level?
In some ways, I’m glad that my own District will not be one of those so targeted.
With all of this in mind, though, surely we can learn what not to do, based on our past experiences, or at least employ strategies locally which can minimize the damage sure to be caused. That’s why I think that it’s important for Bill and others who have been through the meat grinder of a fully funded campaign to share their experiences with the rest of us.
And, for the rest of us, we need to keep something else in mind: for those ridings on which we are going to pin our hopes, we better be prepared to make sacrifices in our own campaigns. Our volunteers will need to devote some of their time to supporting the campaigns in those battleground ridings. Campaign Committee, you need to make this clear to EDA’s: there has to be an expectation that non-battleground EDA’s will be called upon to help out. This may be a small part of a strategy to address the issues Bill has discussed. Certainly it’s not, in my opinion, an unreal expectation to put on non-battleground EDA’s. We are, after all, all in this together.
Whether you believe like I do or not, that the Party might be over after the next election, certainly in support of the current campaign plan, it only makes sense for all of us to do our part. If you believe that making a big effort to elect someone right now is actually going to be problematic for the Party in the long term, I might agree with you, except for one critical point which forms the genesis of my opinion: if we don’t elect someone this time, we risk becoming irrelevant on the Canadian political landscape.
With all of this in mind, I look forward to seeing the national game plan so that we can all obtain a better understanding of how each and every one of us are going to fit into a national strategy. I suspect that the Federal Council elections may be impacting things a little bit right now, but I tell you I fully expect Campaign Committee to start rolling things out as early as next week, no later than W minus 45. A month and a half of pre-campaigning based on a national strategy to me doesn’t seem like much, given that candidates should have been in place across Canada by mid-June and we’ve had the whole summer to strategize. But I’ll take it, and we’ll work with it. There isn’t any other choice.
It’s time for action.
Sorry if I have offended---
I'm sorry if I have offended. But over the last 20 years we have had hordes of team building exercises, special events, campaigns, etc. What I am trying to say is that just scotch-taping one more social event on a burnt out organization simply doesn't work.
People have emphasized electioneering to the point where our local executive leadership has started to think that this stuff is a waste of time and they simply will not come out to stuff anymore. We have a weekly breakfast---everyone's burnt out so no one shows up anymore. I was working on a corn roast and fish fry---sorry, everyone's going out of town in August.
These are all classic symptoms of burn-out in an organization. And the reason why people give their all is because people keep telling that this is all they can do. Well, it isn't. There are a great many non-electoral things that people can do that builds solidarity in the organization and raises the party's profile. Some of the things we've done in the past are:
-province-wide protests against Macdonalds
-the Grand River Watershed congresses
-giving a kick-start to Slow Food in Guelph
-helping our Water-Watchers get started
These all were instrumental in building our riding association. But because of the emphasis on elections, we've stopped doing this stuff and it is showing in our EDA becoming moribund.
And this comes from trying to tell people that they can elect a candidate before they are ready. All election campaigns shouldn't be about running to win. Instead, most of them should be about showing the flag and building the EDA. This sort of campaign should have the following key elements:
-don't burn out volunteers, train them
-keep careful records of supporters so you can try to sign them up between elections
-make money off the election campaign so you enter the dry cycle between campaigns with money in the bank
As for "learning by doing", that is not the best way to train people, it is the worst. It leaves people floundering and the result is a lot bad decisions by people who are beyond their depth. Instead, we should be training people in community organizing techniques so we can attract the best people and select people with the experience and personality best suited to the task at hand. These people should then be trained by others who have a proven track record with regard to that skill.
Thanks for the apology
Thanks Bill, for the apology and reasoned response.
There's not much distance between us. I would hope that most Campaigns set goals and objectives before formulating their campaign plan. Provided the goals are realistic, but still challenging then the team can take pride in success, or near success rather than freaking out due to inflated expectations. For a non-EDA riding, I would suggest a target along the lines of; " Our objective is to recruit 20 volunteers and new members, and form an EDA at the end of the election". If the EDA exists but is shallow then the objective should be something like; "Our objective is to recruit 20 new members and volunteers, Identify 200 more supporters, and increase our electoral support by a quarter". Stronger EDA's can have more sophisticated and ambitious targets. I sincerely hope that all the active EDA's include prominently in their targets exceeding 10% of the vote!
Training is very important, but it takes experience to truly internalise the lessons taught. ( BTW, I have a pretty complete set of Liberal, and a few conservative campaign manuals. very good training tools, for some functions anyway.) The mechanics of the process can be learned, but the pressure cooker environment cannot readily be anticipated by training. The little details just have to be squared away before an election, because there won't be time once the fur is flying. That experience is priceless, and without a core management team who has been through the trial by fire, I doubt any winning campaigns will ever happen in the GPC.
Thank you Bill, the
Thank you Bill, the non-electoral activities you mention are exactly the reason I joined and what I expected of the Green Party. Those activities that build solidarity and raise the party profile have been sorely lacking I notice. It is precisely what can set us apart from the other parties. Our policies are excellent and do set us apart, but our actions, conduct and events in many ways do not differ from the other parties' professional activities. I would rather meet new greens and build the party through the non-electoral events described, which also build community, than meet greens at another party or event where we are speaking to the choir in many ways and not raising our profile in any significant way. I really enjoyed learning through this post of these activities you have organized in the past and hope to see many more in the near future across Canada.
Thank you for this clarification
Bill, thank you for this clarification. While I had heard about some of what you have written here in terms of the Guelph situation, I think that maybe you need to share this experience with more of us in the Party, if just to keep us apprised of what's been going on. As I indicated, while we had issues here in Sudbury during the last campaign, they were nothing like the ones you've described. Maybe because we were running a truly local campaign on a shoe-string budget with modest goals.
Burning our a reality.
I think the key is to diversify your activities if you can, and have some or many that are not related to electioneering is important.
I know that was a mistake that I made in the run up to my by-election as well, since like Guelph, our campaign dragged on and on, and I went through two sets of volunteers by the time the campaign began.
Being my first personal campaign, I was fearful of falling short and embarrassing the party. (Luckily me and Chris Tindal both pulled in 14% of the vote in march 08, which was internally disappointing for some but the media actually declared us the winners.)
In politics, it is always a reality that you set your hopes higher than is real. If you don't project confidence and campaign like you want to win, its tough to inspire others.
Well, having been in a drawn out by-election in the past, I know it is exciting but can also be demoralizing if you don't pace yourself.
One of the items I tried to do was declare that I was going to win, and if I was really lucky even get the most votes. That allowed me to campaign to win, while understanding that it was not likely. I'd highly suggest setting non-electoral success goals as well.
That being said, I can well understand how Mike feels.
When my votes dropped from 14% in the by-election down to 9% in the general election, mainly because of strategic voting, I was quite depressed. (In my case, the Liberals and the Conservatives were 151 votes apart in the by-election, so there was a local trend which amplified the national one.)
For those of us who put in hundreds of hours pre-writ campaigning, the end of last campaign was quite difficult. It is really hard being on the ground campaigning, and putting in an amazing effort only to have items outside of your local campaign influence the result.
Burn-out is the problem---.
As for Mike not running, you have to realize that he is not independently wealthy. He has to make a living and you simply cannot do that while running a campaign where you think you have a chance of winning. He took a huge financial hit campaigning for the election. On top of that, it is a huge workout running a serious campaign where you think you might win. Some of us used to call him "the incredible shrinking man" because of his lost weight.
One other thing is that Mike felt that all the effort he put into the party and all the success that he had locally wasn't being translated into any increased influence. And I can vouch for how damaging it has been to this party the way it absolutely refuses to develop any leadership based on merit in this party. That is why I have made myself into such a shrew with regard to our lack of delegates at conferences and representation by population. Again, this party burns through its best people because it refuses to listen to anyone with a track record.
It wasn't just him who took big hits. Other key members of his campaign team took a lot of time off work too. We burned through volunteers in this town, people it took years to train and build up into a team.
I don't think that all the people going on about "winning seats" have a clue about how much work it takes to run a full-funded campaign.
Of course it didn't help when the Liberal candidate put up posters all over the town where Elizabeth May was quoted as saying that people should vote Liberal instead of Green in places where a Liberal could win by beating a Conservative.
It badly damaged the Guelph EDA when people did the "maximum effort" to win a seat. If other, less robust associations try to do the same thing we will be burning down the party riding by riding.
"leadership based on merit"
For what it's worth, judging even from my little contact with Mike, I for one would very much like to see his national profile raised among Greens. I sensed drive & competence that, were his profile more than local, would contribute to making other Greens more confident, and keep on, you know, raising that bar, even as the electoral bar seems cheated away by unfair raising.
For what it's worth, I should maybe pledge right here to donate some time to another Nagy campaign. (How far will flattery take one...)
Conference delegation seems essential, especially if that is still to be the way policy manages to get officially adopted (which it shouldn't anyway). (I even caught some attendees misleadingly referring to recent conference attendees as "delegates". See http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/197/2009-03-02/brief-convention-account#c... & http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/197/2009-03-02/brief-convention-account#c... .)
I can feel for Mike. I
I can feel for Mike.
I lost about 20 pounds in my campaign (I call them the 30 day diet..although my by-election was 90 days), and ran on orange juice and power bars for the first few days and also know how difficult it is to focus on making a living at the same time.
I was lucky enough not to have to any dependents or a mortgage.
The Chicken or the Egg
There is not a whole lot I can disagree with, and I certainly feel for the Guelph EDA, but if we are a political party and we want to advance our agenda then we simply must do two things, 1. Increase our vote, and 2. Get someone elected.
I am sure Bill is right, they fought hard, gave it there all and still lost, possibly by being undercut by the party, that has to be a bitter pill to swallow. But you know what that’s politics, that is the kind of thing the Conservatives and the Liberals have been feeling for over a hundred years as they battle it out of the hearts and minds of Canadians. If you believe in your party, you have to pick yourself up dust yourself off and throw yourself into the meat grinder yet again, if you can’t stomach another crack at it, if the cause is good and the party is great, someone else will fill the gap. Don’t take that the wrong way I am not trying to be flip, but politics is often likened to war, and a fair comparison it is, although in war it is generally frowned on to shoot your buddy in the back, that aside pretty much the same.
What Steve has not said very clearly in his post is “why” it has suddenly become important to win, when we have been a party for so many years, have not elected anyone in all that time, what’s the rush now? I will tell you what, back then when we were a fringe party with 2% or less of the vote, we had only our core supporters and activists voting for us and they will continue to vote for us but that group will never elect a single MP, they will never effect change, they will never draft or push through, or block a bill, there is simply not enough of them and there never will be. We are however attracting a number of what I call “soft greens” people to whom portions of our platform and policies resonate, they are concerned about the environment and they are fed up with the moral and democratic deficit in politics today. These soft Greens feel like they are chancing their vote on the us, they know it’s a long shot for a green to win and thereby advance the ideals we stand for, but they like us and hope we will win. These Greens, will not wait for us to get our act together, these are mainstream people that have broad based issues and they need to know that if they vote green that person has a chance to win, and that if they win they will do the best they can in all areas of concern to them, such as healthcare, education, foreign policy and the economy. Its these people the two thirds or more of the party that will jump ship if we don’t keep our momentum going forward, they expect results, and if we don’t deliver we will pay by declining in support. We may have already taken too long….
Ron, thank you for sharing
Ron, thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. It's precisely because I fear that we will lose these "soft greens" to the other parties should we fail to achieve results that I believe winning somewhere in the next election is absolutely critical. Although that's only a part of the equation. A continued decrease in media coverage is likely to also be the result of failing to perform at the polling stations, and frankly that's a kiss of death, even in a Web 2.0 world.
Further, the fact is, we have a lot of good policies which are increasingly appealing to more and more people. As a result, those policies will be adopted by the Liberals and the NDP (just as the Carbon Tax was in the last election). When our good policies are incorporated into the platforms of the Liberals and NDP, voters will have little incentive to vote Green, particularly if the Party has always under-achieved. Our policies regarding a holistic approach to the environment and economy, our carbon pricing policies, and our policies to address the democratic deficit will, in the very near future, find a nice home in Red and Orange platform documents.
If we elect someone, anyone, we will be able to point to that person as Result #1. It will show Canadians that Greens really are a viable option.
But without results at the polls, I can't see how we avoid falling back to the fringes.
NO, NO, NO---this is more of the same old crud.
Ron:
The thing is that the Green Party is not like the other parties. If we try to play by the rules that they do, we will be crushed like a bug. We don't have enough money, our votes are not concentrated in specific geographic areas, we do not have access to a pool of very well-trained organizers like the other parties get from their consituencies (Labour for the NDP, business for the Conservatives, Ethnic Organizations like the Liberals.) We don't have riding associations all across the country that have been there for generations. We don't even have the big pool of money from government financing that the other parties get (because we are starting out.)
Our only chance to organize is through the activist community, which is where many Greens have come from. We have never trained our fledgling EDAs in this sort of organizing strategy because the people who are in the head office and the Federal Council either come from other types of organizations or because they simply have no experience at all. If we now decide that we need to only be "professional" like the other parties, we are going to crash and burn for sure. This is why I have been such a Cassandra about trying to learn from the strong Green Party EDAs instead of ignoring them because their experience clashes with people's preconceived notions.
Interesting discussion
Quite the good discussion going on here.
I know our EDA was quite disappointed when we came up just shy (under 100 votes iirc) from getting to 10% last election (insane how that part of funding works imo). We were cheering whenever the polls showed us above the magic line. Nice to beat the NDP candidate too, although given he did a horrid campaign it was sad to see him still be close to us.
The key for a successful EDA seems to be having people who just love being involved. You need to provide people with reasons to be excited and then make sure there are a series of goals for each election that will make them all happy. I have to do a lot of work (I am way behind) to get things in place to help us next time and to help us grow.
So, how do we both grow as a party and keep the general electorate willing to vote for the GPC when the media is doing everything it can to change our country into a US style 2 party system?
That 3rd point is vital to remember this time around. The Liberals under Iggy are not allies of the Green Party, nor will they be green should they win. The NDP is not a green based party, they like subsidizing US car companies. Doing anything that helps Liberals/CPC/NDP members get elected is counter-productive to a greener world. That is the message we need to get out.
For the upcoming election -> Do you feel like politicians are ignoring you? Do you feel like you are picking the lesser of two evils? Then it is time to feel good about voting again. Vote for the party that believes in what you believe in. A country you can be proud to pass on to your children and grandchildren. Vote Green.
Wellington-Halton Hills
Interesting Indeed
You know I had a section in my last post that included NO No No but I deleted it.
This is certainly a productive discussion, I like John's last paragraph, that kind of simple messaging will go along way to getting us where we want to go, it sticks to our core assets and does not get too complex.
And Bill you are right, but you are also wrong, we are fresh, young and different, but we are still playing in the same sandbox, if you think that we can take some fresh sand from outside the box and play with it for a while, then later on when it’s time to go home take only our own sand with us, you would be very mistaken.
I don't understand your analogy---
Ron:
I don't understand the analogy about taking sand home---.
I don't think you've given me a response to the issues I've raised, either. How are we going to deal with the profound differences in funds for advertising? How are we going to deal with the fact that the other parties have organized communities of interest in all their ridings? (That is, the Chambers of Commerce for the Conservatives; the Labour Councils for the NDP; and the Ethnic Clubs for the Liberals.) How are we going to deal the differences in depth in almost all the ridings? (E.g. the generations of people who are allied with one of the three main parties.)
I've suggested that we need to use community organizing strategies to build up this political infrastructure before we can hope to win seats in a first-past-the-post system, but I haven't seen any of the folks whom I have been characterizing as "jiminey crickets" even responding to these issues. Is it perhaps because they know so little about the real world of grassroots organizing that they do not know what I am talking about?
veterans' agreement
Bill, concurring with you, I guess as one veteran dissenter to another, albeit from differing angles, here's part of something I wrote among Greens over a year ago, and brought to http://new.greenparty.ca/node/4693#comment-5057 (q.v.):
"On the ground, I've several times mentioned among Greens, with no takers, that Greens should be very well positioned to involve themselves, with background political motivation, in developing such nucleus "reslience" communities as Heinberg describes. The "background political motivation" would be of greater import in Canada than Heinberg's U.S., given the more laudable American do-it-yourself approach than our tendency to look to government authority."
[...]
"This "for decades" "previously marginalized alternatives advocate" & "organic farming advocate" believes that such local "resilience" groupings that Heinberg muses about would be very useful for Green political purpose. Libs. now flounder for lack of more specific support bases based in certain extra-political activities or groupings (consider their relative numbers recently discussed in this forum), like politicized nationalists for BQ, some religionists & corporateers for Cons., unions &c for NDP. The recent strongly worded discussion on the GPC blogsite regarding organizational abilities can be seen to be a function of the same difficulty Libs. have. And the more one plays purer politics as it has unfortunately come to be played in Canada, playing with polls & $ & just so much rah-rah-rah-ing, the more does GPC sometimes seem to approach the general emptiness of those floundering Libs. With even smallish groupings closer knit for extra-political purposes largely behind a party, political organization becomes that much easier & more effective. "Resilience" community networks are an example, especially as they of necessity comprehensively branch out to many other local organizations, of how Greens could form that "extra-political" base of support."
(Your own example for Libs.' ethnic "extra-political" bases is foundering under Cons. assault. I know this very well from my own "ethnic" community.)
I don't have much hope that your Guelph example is apt to be followed, nor something along the lines I speak of in the quotes above, although here and there it might apply somewhat. More likely broader eventual electoral success will depend on dedicated longer-term patient candidate effort working in the riding to develop the appearance of being "one of the people" (e.g. as I believe Erich J-H is doing in Barrie), someone who's met so many in their riding over the years and made them feel comfortable that it will be less and less hard to slip into voters' acceptance, whatever reticence about the party; and from generally attempting to "raise the bar" in level of discourse among many Greens, much as Eliz. is succeeding in coaxing otherwise reticent very capable people to step forward, my efforts going this way due to there having been "no takers" as I say above. The "raised bar", apart from helping form better policy, contributes to giving the positive impression that should serve to attract the important group referred to in something else I wrote for Greens two years ago, brought to http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/14516/2009-07-09/green-fairytale-must-be-... (q. also v.):
"We made clear that we did not act in any official GPC capacity [in preparing this report], rather as concerned and engaged supporters. Any contributions of those consulted are understood as in no way expressing support for GPC. However, we unexpectedly found that among our academic consultants there already existed significant connexion with Green politics, in the guise of ballots cast, membership, professional assistance & sympathy. This should be taken as a serious indicator of where GPC is in public perception, especially in such academic circles of great, although lesser seen, influence: that such positive inclinations lie so near to the surface should be an important prod for GPC to work hard to dispel any reticence such people would have in actually expressing open support and participation. That reticence is surely related to perceptions or expectations that such a political party, in its apparent broad dissent from others, lacks serious attention to things like law, history, administration, at the very heart of governance. It is thus in part to raise the intellectual bar in GPC policy discussion that recourse was made primarily to consulting academicians, among whom experts in international law, regional history, sociology, religion."
All efforts spoken of can be complementary.
Advantages vs Disadvantages
As Bill describes, for sure the deck is stacked against us if we are today trying to visualize how to win a majority and form government. This is no different than a Pee Wee hockey team trying to beat the Leafs in a best 4 out of 7 series. (fill in your own Leafs joke _____ [here]___)
We do receive generous federal subsidies - yet we do not have to compete in 200 ridings hoping to win 155. Of course we have to show the flag in every riding to keep the subsidy rolling in, but we really only have to contest a few ridings in order to achieve a breakthrough. With our resources we can funnel lots of money to the ridings and still contest a few ridings with the big teams.
We have a huge advantage!
Rob Brooks, Hull-Aylmer
You don't understand how the Federal Subsidy operates.
Rob:
With all due respect, you don't understand how the federal subsidy operates. We get paid per vote, that means that if we only get a big vote in a few ridings the party is going to be really starved for funds. That is the present situation. Secondly, a second level of funding kicks in after we get more than 10% in a riding. We have only recently done that in even a handful or ridings.
As for concentrating on a handful of ridings, you are missing the important point that politics is additive. That is to say, you build a winning strategy by adding together 10% of the vote here, 5% there, a further 12% somewhere else. One of the key "somewhere elses" is that fraction of the public that only gets its information on the election via the national press and television advertising. The Green Party of Canada is pretty much frozen out of these two venues. We simply do not have enough money to do credible advertising in either TV or national media. And because of that lack of money and credible "ground campaigns", we are not going to get enough coverage in the media.
We can see this problem in Guelph by doing poll by poll mapping of our riding. We can win polls that are in the older parts of the city because these are the people (on average) who work in Guelph, are involved in local community activities and read the local media. The people in the outlying suburbs, in contrast, (on average) work out of town, read the Toronto Star, National Post or Globe and Mail or watch television. Instead of getting involved in local community, they travel overseas during vactions, stay at home, or, party in Toronto. We simply cannot reach these people as easily using volunteers because people are rarely home and they think Greens are total flakes anyway because they don't see or hear anything about them.
The best a strong riding can do with a good campaign is ensure that we bring in as many of the people who live in "our universe" as possible. (These are the low-hanging fruit.) It is easy to dramatically increase our vote count with good organizing if we start from zero because we have a basic level of about 20% of the public who agree with our worldview but will only vote for us if they think we aren't flakes. But once you can bring in those voters who already "get it", it gets extremely hard to not plateau and stagnate. That is why Greens around the world do not win in first-past-the-post electoral systems. (Why do would anyone think that Canadian Greens would do better than any other country in the world? Are we supposed to be "special"?)
If we are going to get anywhere we have to stop "wishing on a star" and really try to understand the situation we find ourselves in. If we don't develop a sophisticated long term electoral strategy that is based on the situation we really find ourselves in, we are going to raise false expectations that will be deflated when we fail to achieve them. The strategy I am suggesting is that we accept the problems we face as a new party and work to build-up a natural constituency to support us.
One last point. Part of the reason why the other parties are incapable of dealing with climate change in a reasonable manner is because their strategy is based on pandering to their preconceived notions instead of trying to educate them. (Think about the talking oil-spot ads that were used to attack Dion's carbon tax.) We do not want to simply take over the government and continue with business as usual. This means that we have an added electoral task---we cannot tailor our policy to fit the public, we have to educate the public so they fit our policy. This added need means that we are going to have to put a lot of energy into educating the public in new ways of looking at the world.
Aping the other parties in the hope of getting the odd person elected would only be possible, IMHO, if we progressively whittled-down our basic philosophy to the point where the GPC would not be much different from any of the mainstream parties. At that point the obvious question is "why bother"? Why not just join one of the other parties and support the environmentalist caucus?
Federal Subsidy - Per Vote
Actually I think we all understand how this works - we get the Federal subsidy for each vote we get. Take the last election for instance, in Labrador, one of the staff from the National office ran as a paper candidate and gathered 302 votes.
So now we earn roughly $600 for "free" per year based on doing nothing more than putting a name on the ballot. We have no EDA in that riding so the party is free to do whatever it wants with the $600 per year.
Our advantage is we don't have to try to contest 200 ridings in order to try to win 155. We can put some of those "free" resources back into the ridings and concentrate the remainder in a few ridings where the local conditions based on the good work of the local members and the general organic support may be conducive to a win or at least a competitive effort.
In my riding, I wouldn't ask the party for a dime. We will wave the flag and get our vote. The resources we earn for the party can be used to sustain the party and take a few shots in places where we might have a realistic chance.
That's all I am saying. It's just basic arithmetic.
Rob Brooks, Hull-Aylmer
Not a chance in H, E double hockey sticks
Bill, My jaw dropped when I read this line.
"This means that we have an added electoral task---we cannot tailor our policy to fit the public, we have to educate the public so they fit our policy. This added need means that we are going to have to put a lot of energy into educating the public in new ways of looking at the world."
The total and complete vanity of it is astounding. This kind of attitude is why we come across as "Flakes". How important do you think we are, and how little do you respect the public. We are a political party, which means in short and simple terms, we take very basic principles and ideas and translate them into a "theme" of governance. We have a tendency to get too in depth with specific issues, and forget that that is not our job unless we get elected.
What the public expects from a political party is to get the general flavour of the party, for example we would steward the environment, we would advance social justice, we would mind the books and keep us in the black, we are for foreign aid, yada yada yada. These are the kinds of things we need to "educate" the public on, because I guarantee you that if you think you will every get more then a handful of people to buy into what you are saying, you are deluding yourself and trying to do the same to the party.
By the way the sand comment was philosophy, consider the sandbox is the political arena and you might get it.
And Daryl, for gods sake keep it simple, I am obviously not as smart as you, and I need to go to work I can't spend half an hour reading war and peace, the links and still not have a clue, what you are getting at!
Not necessary to educate the public, eh Ron?
Well Ron you've just made clear where you're coming from.
I just guess I'll give up now.
me, too, I guess, Bill
i still haven't figured out why some have chosen the greens, other than for just somewhere to have fun playing at politics, green politics in the general context always having to be kind of anti-politics, which of course makes it hard
it's bizarre to have, of all the so many blogger-contributors here, the Vancouver Sun journalist pick up on Ron as supposedly characteristic enough to quote -- Ron, can you spell 'dissent'?
but, no, "not me, too", for now anyway, because if only one person in a thousand who clicks a link and is positively affected with any depth by what i put out, that's fine, it's as if i'm one-to-one at my kitchen table, and it would take about as much time -- Ron's is not the first completely misplaced reference to my supposed having inordinate time to spend
"A few days ago on CBC Radio an interviewee was describing a typical Canadian reaction to the suggestion in conversation of consideration of deep & fundamental issues: the interlocutor gives the suggester a look, picks up his drink and moves to another table. Still, there is a similar percentage of philosophically inclined among Canadians as among all peoples, it's just that it's not easily allowed to emerge with seriousness in public discourse." (from http://www.greenparty.ca/node/6600#comment-9502 , which do see, you one in a thousand, but not Yaffe, I don't care to be put in the Vancouver Sun)
there has to be room for everyone, obviously for Ron & co., but especially for long-experienced dissenters who have been proven right, and the onus is more on newer, "lighter" Greens to dig deeper than older, darker ones to lighten up
Wow!
Bill, If you don't get what's wrong with that statement it speaks volumes, the problem was not with “educate” the problem was that you seem to think that it's all right to try to force the Canadian Electorate to think our way, that's total arrogance! Parties that think like that are actually kind of scary when you think about history and the political forces that have went with the my way or the highway philosophy.
As a political party we serve the public and our members, it is us, not them that has to bend to fulfill their needs and marry them with our philosophies, that is not to say that we are going to change the fundamentals of what it means to be green, but who says what has gone on before is the only right course of action, who says that the people who vote for us don’t count and that their “soft green” ideas are wrong, perhaps they know more then we do, maybe they are more in touch with their wants, needs and desires, could be that they know and understand that the green party right now represents too big a pill for most voters to swallow and maybe just maybe we need to chop our ideas into bite size pieces.
Bill, you have said we need to build for the long haul, low and behold I agree, the difference is I don’t see it as being mutually exclusive with focusing on winning “A” seat. We need to chop up our policies into smaller achievable less scary short term targets and leave the longer term less palatable stuff to a later date, when the public is more ready to accept it. We must also get at least one MP elected to Parliament so that our votes really do get counted, the money is great but money is not the only thing, a sitting MP says we are “electable” and it will get us far more press coverage then our one seat would really warrant.
And Daryl, I have already admitted I don't have as big a brain as you, now I will tell the world that I can't spell to save my life, but I do try, if you want to do the schoolyard insult thing perhaps you should go find a schoolyard. But then again to be fair perhaps you took my comment on your writing the same way, for that I apologize.
Public Education vs. Spin: Which Path Do We Take?
Bill, thank you again for taking the time to provide some thoughtful discourse here. I totally understand where you are coming from, and I largely agree that the long-term sustainable health of our Party requires that we devote the time and energy into organizing in a way we’ve not done outside of a few ridings. I take it to heart that the other three parties already have local organizations on the ground ready to trumpet the Party’s message between and during elections, and we Greens largely don’t. That’s why, here in Sudbury, we’ve started getting involved with organizations, such as environmental and redevelopment groups, and the peace movement, which share our values. But it’s going to take time to build capacity here. If we’re in it for the long haul, though, we’ve got no choice: take the time, build the capacity, network. It may take a decade or two. But locally, we have a good example of how this worked with the NDP, who did take the time to invest in the community, and finally reaped the profits in the last election by electing their first MP here.
We encounter similar experiences with regards to the urban/suburban situation you’ve described, although with perhaps a more vibrant local media up here in somewhat isolated Sudbury (and certainly with an anti-Toronto bias), it might actually be easier for us to get our message out. Certainly, the local media has been friendly to us. We just need to keep doing more.
We can not expect electoral success without making these investments. We need to start changing minds one voter at a time. In a world where science is reduced to spin, and the attention of the media wanders from topic to topic, it is very difficult for people who have only limited time to become engaged in public discourse. Essentially, I believe, that for the hard topics, the majority will believe in what they perceive to be the consensus point of view. And that consensus point of view is the one promulgated by the media. Whether it’s correct or not doesn’t matter. Whether it’s actually what the consensus is isn’t important. The media marches to its own drummer, and promotes what it wants.
Look at what’s been going on south of the border with regards to the accusations that Barack Obama was born in another country. Mainstream media ran with this story for a few days after it "hit" (the story itself has been around before the election, but it takes momentum for a story to hit...kind of like the way things go viral on the web). After mainstream media analysis, the story was discredited as not being true. But some mainstream media continued with the story, prefacing the story with "We know this isn’t true, but..." sorts of tags. Why give a discredited story air-time? Because it’s interesting, it serves their own agenda, and it sells advertising. In short, spin.
I believe that spin should be considered by some to be more important to the typical voter than fact. How can it not be, when none of us have the time to dig deeper into a particular story, whether that’s Barack Obama’s place of birth, or climate change. With so much competing information out there, voters are often drawn to the consensus point of view to form their opinions. There just isn’t time or, in some cases, desire to look beyond. And why not trust the media? They are professionals, aren’t they? They wouldn’t report lies?
Well, maybe not outright (and maybe they do too), but the truth is often a casualty in journalism, because it’s less interesting, it doesn’t sell, it doesn’t promote a particular agenda.
In the face of all of this, how do Greens reach voters? We’ve three choices:
1) Do what Bill suggests, the hard work, reach them one at a time, and educate them so that they fit our policies. I think this is the best choice, because it’s the long-term approach, and it is sustainable. That’s what we need to do to create these core "green friendly" community organizations. And I don’t think it’s arrogant at all to suggest that we need to educate: if the opinion of voters is being shaped by the mainstream media, and the mainstream media for its own reasons is being less than honest with the truth (and we continue to see that in the climate change debate, which the media still hasn’t moved on from...meanwhile, we Greens are talking about the Runaway Climate Crisis that we’re likely already in the midst of). Education takes time, too, but it’s time well-invested. Maybe that’s why younger voters tend to see our Party as a more viable alternative: because they have the time to educate themselves on the issues, and they are not as reliant on mainstream media for shaping their opinions. What might the world be like if we were all in school, learning, throughout our adult lives?
2) Play the spin game. Go after the other Parties. Try to become "mainstream" ourselves by jettisoning policies which hinder our ability to get elected. Convince the media that we are not flakes and join them. Position ourselves on the progressive right of the political spectrum. Use everything at our disposal to crush the NDP as a regressive, brown-economy dinosaur of a Party, all in order to steal their voters in an attempt to destroy once and for all, so that the Greens become the only party of the truly progressive. Play politics at every opportunity, engage in negative advertising to destroy the credibility of our opponents on the ground, including the use of personal attacks where appropriate. Start those whisper campaigns rolling.
There are problems with this approach, however. First, it’s not likely to work, because if we engage in this kind of behaviour, we’re going to lose most of our core supporters right away because, frankly, this approach is crap, and we joined the Green Party to get away from Politics-As-Usual. Second, it’s not likely to work because we don’t have the resources to do it well, and more than likely the Green Party itself will end up a casualty if we try to play this game, because we just don’t have the skill-set necessary to play it well.
3) A combination of the above two choices. Approach every circumstance differently. Use spin, but judiciously. Re-assess our policies, because we know some are problematic and dated. Take the high road at every opportunity, but don’t be afraid of mixing it up and becoming a little partisan at times. Invest heavily in building healthy EDA’s, but don’t lose sight of the need for electoral success.
And there is a need to succeed at the polls, I believe. I’ve written about it in this blog: I believe our Party is in jeopardy of sliding into irrelevancy if we don’t succeed at the polls in this election. Because we clearly don’t have the resources, and likely the patience, to continue with Option #1, and we clearly aren’t going to succeed with Option #2. Option #3 loses its appeal as well if we are going to continue to be depicted as Losers. So, we need to avoid the Loser label, and we can do that by just winning once, somewhere, that’s all we need. Federal preferably, but provincially would do too. Just one win, and we’re not those Loser Greens any more.
And that’s why I believe we need to invest heavily in this coming election to elect someone somewhere. And that's why I guess if I had to choose, I'd have to say Option #3 serves our long-term interests best, but only because I believe we need to win this time out. Otherwise, Bill and my own observations have convinced me that sustainable long-term success is only going to occur through Option #1, because even if we elect someone, our credibility and loss of the Loser legacy, is only in place for as long as the MP is sitting in his or her place. But we need that foothold to pivot forward.
Two different targets, at two different times
Speaking as a newer, "light" Green with some appreciation for the history and struggles from reading these discussions, but little actual experience (so apologies in advance)...
Educating people to fully "buy in" to the details and deeper philosophy is a slow process, but gets you the evangelists who in turn will be able to generate many votes from ordinary citizens over time. This is essential. But most people don't have the time or interest to get into that level of detail. And confronted with someone who bleeds six shades of green and insists they do too (buy into all the policies and philosophy) is going to tell them where to go.
But we have (even more so this time around, with the Liberals dropping the environmental bag) a fairly small number of core ideas and general principles that help distinguish our platform from the other parties. These include environmental and social sustainability, fiscal responsibility, and democratic reform/grassroots (not top-down 'all policies are set in stone by the leaders' thinking). The last of these suggests the details don't matter as much at this point (nobody thinks there will be a green government) but there's some confidence that through open collaboration sensible details would emerge. A breath of fresh air if you will.
With just these few high-level things, we can clearly differentiate ourselves from the other choices. Add much more detail and it muddies the waters for most people. Save the details for when you're recruiting the evangelists, not for an election campaign targeted at the general public. Don't confuse the two.
Yikes, we actually have a (small, digestable) message for the public! How do we get that across? With incredibly limited resources, we need a clear communications strategy, with everyone singing from the same songbook. That means tight centralization, not everyone off doing their own thing. And in a small number of target ridings, that means additional support drawn from across the party. So that the communications strategy there stays on message, even while addressing local issues.
The election period has to be targeted at the public, not the evangelists (though it's a great opportunity to identify potential evangelists to be wooed between elections). But the line about elections being a bad time to talk about (detailed) policy are true, especially in our 'sound bite' world. The public message getting sidetracked is the biggest danger during the election campaign.
Why does education have to be long-winded and boring?
I sense an underlying assumption that anyone who is trying to educate the public is by definition long-winded and boring. We are only limited by our creativity and talent in our ability to do public education succinctly and as entertainingly. But there are issues that we need to educate the public about. To cite one case, the population of the earth is about to hit a brick wall because we are entering into the last doubling cycle before an overshoot and crash. And that is even if climate change didn't exist. The vast majority of voters in this country do not know what the above means---yet it will be the most important issue that people will face for the next several decades. If we pander to people's "conventional wisdom"---like the media and other parties---we will not be part of the solution, but rather part of the problem.
I know what you mean
Bill I understand what you are saying, and agree this is a very important issue, but this is exactly the kind of thing to bring up between elections, not during, this is a topic for an entire conference not 60 seconds on someone’s doorstep. The other problem is this is a planetary issue, not a federal or provincial issue, even if elected in a massive majority government of Greens, what can we do about it other then to scold, coerce and suggest other countries get their act together, would we sanction other countries. Here at home are we going to impose a domestic limit on having children? we already have negative growth rates for second and third generation Canadians.
The fact is most people are not political, they just might want to vote and they will likely either vote the way their family has always voted or they will vote for who gives them the best "feeling" whatever that is it's not specific. We could hope the people would be more engaged but they aren’t, and that’s why the main line parties can spew total nonsensical garbage and a certain number of the population will buy into it. Now I don't think the majority are that simple, but the vast majority are very busy in their daily lives and the sole thing they are looking for in a party is trust, trust that we will do what is best for them and the Country, the electorate has spoken on this, they gave us a "C" that’s for conditional pass. They gave us more votes, they demanded we be let into the leaders debate, and they listened to our leader and our candidates seriously, and then they voted for someone else, it's not because they are stupid quite the contrary, in fact they looked at us and found us wanting in some way, what we need to do is find out what way, why did they not trust us with just one or two seats?
It is the definition of madness to do the same thing over and over again without change and expect a different result.
Who said talk about this at the door?
Ron:
But that is just the point I am trying to make. If we devote all our very scarce resources to the elections, then there will be zero time between elections to work on community organizing and public education campaigns between them.
People keep saying "we can do both". Yes, we could. But the history of the GPC has been to play lip service to doing both and then doing neither.
I got an email from someone who was watching this list and he was complaining about trying to organize something for the Toronto Labour Day Parade, but was getting nowhere. I got the impression it wasn't because people were opposed to it, just that it was being deprioritized to the point of nothing being done.
(I suggested he do the usual thing and bypass the head office, and instead do things through an GPO CA. That way he wouldn't have to wait until the event was over to get an OK.)
I am not saying that we shouldn't run candidates. Or even that we shouldn't be giving a maximum effort when appropriate, just that we need a much more nuanced approach to building the party that we are hearing either from the head office, Elizabeth May, or, some of the people on these blogs. And that nuanced response has to be more than just taking new things on top of the existing status quo. We need to make some very hard decisions and stick to them instead of just adding together all the suggestions.
How to explain an issue in thirty seconds----
Take a look at this cartoon to see how to explain the population issue---.
http://www.gocomics.com/tomthedancingbug/
Good Toon
Get's the point across in 60 seconds, not funny, and quite depressing, perhaps I should go depopulate myself!.........Sorry had to get a little humor out of it.
see...
http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/716/2009-03-09/where-can-i-find-new-vote-...
entitled, "let's depopulate"
Seriously I agree. I have not
Seriously I agree. I have not been around the GPC on the inside all that long however I have watched as an interested outsider for many years already, and I'll tell you from the outside the Green Party looks pretty much like it is on the inside, and this is largely why we don't break through. It is very obvious from the outside that we are the little party that grew and still don't really know what to do with our newfound success, and we really don't know what to do from here.
You are very correct, we do need to build strong EDA's and we need to do the heavy lifting in between elections so that everything is in place come the writ drop and we reach our pinnacle on election day, that's hard work and that takes major organization. This is where we start to run into traditional problems, we are a grass roots party, that means our members are very involved in the party and we as a group encourage this, that part is great!, the down side is that we have a very poor opinion of “Top Down Organizing”, we call it politics as usual, and we feel we are different. The fact is any team effort must have a captain, and that team has to follow in the same direction as the captain or it will get creamed on the field, they may score a goal or two but they will never win the game.
Right or wrong if we ever want to win this thing we are all going to have to work from the same play book, or we won't stand a chance, I say let's see what the new council comes up with and run with it on mass, if it does not work we should have a traditional politics as usual house clearing upheaval and start over, I for one am not willing to spin my gears for years as the environment collapses, failure is not an option and we don't have a whole lot of time.
We have most potential to grow
Ron, I agree when you say we have a poor opinion of ‘top down organizing’. In part it’s because we laud our grass roots characteristics (good) and in part it’s because we don’t know how to top down organize so it’s convenient to say we don’t want to be like the other parties in that department (not so good). By the way, a GPC commitment to strengthening our EDA's by using national resources to do that would be an example of top down organizing.
I don’t mind being different than the other parties in any department, as long as we continue to increase our political support as measured by the percentage of popular support in general elections. Here's an excpetion to the rule where we should be more like other parties. As measured by Nanos Research, we are worse than any other party by far at converting our ‘accessible voter pool’ into real votes. Our proportion of ‘mind share’ out there, people who have considered voting for us, is more than half it is for Liberals and Conservatives but our actual votes are much less than half of theirs.
The good news is that we have by far the most potential to grow compared to any of the other parties.
The views I express on this blog are purely my own and should not be construed to represent the official position of the Green Party of Canada.
percentage of popular support
I agree, Ard, in the current overall political context of inability to be first past the post anywhere, that percentage of popular support is the most important external indicator, and that that should be foremost in planners' minds. That is why I have said among Greens that the aim should be to more closely match pre-election poll numbers on election day, with by now a still hard-to-reach but visible 10% mark to go for. As GPC would pass BQ in national %, pressure for electoral reform should ensue more resolutely. (There are all kinds of ways to incorporate dissenting parties, which already receive public funding, into a parliamentary framework without having seats. See the book excerpts at length, while mostly on the utterly wayward & destructive Harperite approach to parliament, and thus especially good for candidate use, from http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/7/2009-07-14/stephen-harper-bashes-religi... to webpage end, plus http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/7/2009-07-14/stephen-harper-bashes-religi....) I unfortunately expect, given internal indicators, that any increase in % would be from demographic flow, following polls showing marked youth preference. Thankfully, it's not the case that all <25s don't vote, and it is the case >25s' support will progressively rise. But we go on & do what we do, even lamenting some possible overfocus on one candidate in one riding, and with reasonably neutral main media -- not to be assumed -- a decent campaign message should pull GPC up a couple of points. And, to repeat, even a decent 4th place showing in a true 4-way race, or 3rd in a 3-, in that one riding should be construed as a positive sign of being on predictable positive course. But who doesn't like a good surprise?
One more note regarding electoral reform and that one riding. I have said over & over that from a "green"-theoretical localist standpoint, first-past-the-post could be acceptable. When many Canadians are strongly averse to "parachute" candidates, that is localist sensibility in action. That riding has very many coming "from away", so that aversion should matter less. Still, again, there are all manner of ways to insert more direct Green (& other "lesser" parties') influence into a parliamentary context. Even regarding the Senate, which route I have repeatedly expressed as being the most appropriate for Canada, need not have constitutional amendment nor even something like Conservatives proposed. There could be different pressures brought to bear for appropriate appointments. It is not reasonable to expect this, but it is suggested to pry open creative abilities, which is supposed to be a Green strength. What might become more in reach at 10%?
Isn't there a bit of a paradox in these statments?
Ron and Ard:
Please read carefully what you have both written: 'we are afraid of top-down organizing, which is why our head office doesn't put resources into developing the grassroots'. Huh? How is it an exercise in being 'top down' to build up the party from the grass-roots up?
I would argue instead that the real problem is that various people in this party are very, very, very jealous of the power that they already have and are afraid that if we built a really strong, grass-roots party they'd lose their ability to be a big fish in a small pond. There are very small groups of people in ridings who do not want to sell a lot of memberships because if they did so they'd end up being out-voted in their local meetings. There are also people in Federal Council that fight tooth and nail against having a delegate and practical decision-making system at conferences because they know that these would give real power to the EDAs and reduce the power of the Federal Council. And there are others in this party who oppose shrinking the size of the Federal Council and extending members term of office because that would make the group more effective and act as a counter-balance to the Executive Director and Leader's authority.
None of these people are conscious about this, like Shakespeare's Richard the 3rd, but instead think that they are doing something noble and good (primarily they think that in some vague way they are defending some minority rights or the principle of inclusiveness.) But that doesn't change the fact that the cumulative effect is to make the GPC pretty much impossible to govern. And in an organization without practical and responsible governance you do not get freedom from leaders, instead you have decisions being made by anonymous people who have no responsibility to justify their decisions to the membership. (This is called "the tyranny of structurelessness".)
This is why I tried for years to get some sort of practical governance structure in the GPC. Because I failed in the attempt, we have never really been able to tap our true potential. I did the same thing with the GPO, and as a result of this (at least partial) success, the GPO went from being pretty much a disaster to the strongest Green Party in Canada.
What's the commonality?
At least a bit of a paradox is better than a contradiction. Maybe the commonality between your comments and the need for top down organizing is that both try to address the problem that there’s no mechanism in place that assures the GPC is looking out after its own interests.
You’re coming at it from the angle that people are jealous of power, big fish in small pond syndrome, reluctance to give EDA’s power and more. I too see all these characteristics as being counter to the interests of the GPC but the lack of top down organizing ability (whether constrained by structure or people) makes it hard to address those problems, or as you say, ‘make the GPC pretty much impossible to govern’. To me a lack of top down organizing ability is another way of saying the inability to set the right organizational priorities and achieve them.
There might be a longer discussion brewing but I've got to duck out. I'm packing and will be offline for a few days.
The views I express on this blog are purely my own and should not be construed to represent the official position of the Green Party of Canada.
Just a question of language---no disagreement
Ard:
I don't think there is any disagreement between us. I just wanted to point out that the language you and Ron were using might cast the issue in terms of being "pro" hierarchy versus grass roots. As I see it, this is a bit of a false dichotomy as the best way to empower our grass roots would be to have the head office make it a priority instead of focusing on the trappings of traditional politics (the Leader's tour, media releases, etc.)
Did I write one of those
Well written they are but I don't think either one is mine. Too bad? Or is there another Ron?