Time for a leadership race?
A great deal is on the blogs on the Green Party site and elsewhere that presumes a few things about current leadership questions.
I have been trying to stay out of the discussion of leadership issues ever since the question of when we should have a leadership race was first raised last fall.
Here’s how I see it. I ran to be leader in 2006 for a two year term. The vast constitutional change proposed at that BGM included doubling the fixed term to four years. I was against the whole constitutional set of changes and said so publicly. The changes seemed rushed and poorly conceived. They passed anyway, and, winning leadership, I had a four year term, ending at the end of August 2010. As for “job security,” the Constitution allows the leader to be removed at any meeting of council by a 2/3 vote.
There has been some discussion on line that presumed I made some effort to extend my term. That is just not the case. I have absented myself from the debate on council about what to do at the end of this term on the doorstep of a possible fall election. Elections Canada rule changes related to leadership campaign financing presented practical issues. Council sought legal advice and was told that, to be prudent, a leader would have to step down in order to run for leadership due to changes made in 2003. Council did its best, working through a range of options. What the majority of council has put forward to the membership is a fair and sensible effort. Accepting it would solve issues not only for the immediate future, but for future leaders and unforeseeable elections.
What if members opt to have a leadership race? I, for one, am open to whatever the membership decides and will welcome the decision, whichever way it is decided. This amazing Green Party movement is a work in progress. We are charting a new way and if our members decide that a leadership race every four years, no matter what the circumstance, is healthy then I will throw myself into taking this party forward again.
Politics in this country needs to change and we in the Green Party are fiercely committed to openness and democracy. We lack party bosses -- and we like that. We debate openly and that is why we are growing -- and growing.
I am proud of what I have accomplished as leader of this party. We are the only party that increased its vote in 2008. And we increased it a lot, from 4% to nearly 7%. Such an accomplishment is even more impressive given that the total Canadian vote dropped to historic lows. Traditional wisdom is that we do better with high voter turn out. We had over 40 ridings achieve over 10% of the vote -- well beyond anything in 2006.
I pledged when I ran for leader to increase the ethnic diversity of the party and of our candidates. I committed to increase the involvement of youth (when I ran for leadership, the party had no youth wing.) Now we have a far more diverse and inclusive group of candidates and we have a vital youth wing, Young Greens.
I promised we would have a fuller set of policy prescriptions with better research supporting them. We produced Vision Green. We have, for the first time ever, produced fully budgeted campaign platforms and updated them.
I promised to run at my first opportunity in a by-election, so the party would be taken more seriously. That I did, increasing the vote in London North Centre from 5% to 26% between January and November 2006. That we nearly won the seat changed everything for the party.
There is much to discuss about the party and its purpose. A leadership renewal is not a bad thing and I welcome it. I have no doubt that I will lead the party into the next election and that we will win seats.
The bigger question is “why would that matter?” That is the question we have to answer for ourselves and for Canadians. It cannot just be the same self-serving partisanship voters hear from the other parties. It cannot be a hollow “because we are better .. or smarter” at politics. It must be because we will change politics.
We must be so committed to changing the culture of Canadian politics that today’s hyper-partisanship itself will be out of date. It must be because we are committed to working with like-minded people in all the other parties to make the changes most urgently required.
The top of that list is responding to the climate crisis. The fact that the climate crisis is a top priority is not a messaging problem. It is not a strategy. It is the reality. We have very little time to make the dramatic changes humanity must make to end our fossil fuel addiction. Greens must lead that change.
Greens recognize that ending our addiction to fossil fuels is an economic platform. It requires an energy policy. We know that core Green values require social justice and equity, so the economic shift to renewables and greater energy efficiency does not occur in a land where too few people have meaningful work, or where too many live in poverty.
We have developed a fully integrated and accessible set of policies in Vision Green. A leadership contest can help us explain that vision to Canadians.
Just so you know where I stand before the BGM, I am not trying to extend my term. If a leadership race is on, I will step down at the end of August and run for and win a renewed leadership mandate.
The Green Party is the only party in the country to have a steadily improved standing across the country. We have far more in common than in our differences. Our BGM will be a great and positive event, revitalizing and refreshing our energies, regardless of the outcomes on various motions. I look forward to seeing you there!
- Elizabeth May's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Français
Recent Comments
- David Barclay |
- Rick Shea |
- David Barclay |
- Erich Jacoby-Hawkins |
- Rick Shea |
- 1 of 2165
- ››
Comments
This is too late
Your email to "all" members I am sure already affected the vote and this is damage control only .
And the vote closed August 2 2010
If you really believe this post step down today.
And then this tidbit.
""As for “job security,” the Constitution allows the leader to be removed at any meeting of council by a 2/3 vote.""
Is this the same law that applied to John Shavluk's candidacy removal and never happened?
The Right Time
Normally I, and Greens in general, do not propose doing things the way the other Parties in Canada do them. We are here to change the way politics is done after all. However, in the case of the timing of leadership races the way the other parties do them is the best way. Since the rules change in 2003 brought in by Elections Canada, this is even more the case. Changing the Constitution to allow for the requirement of a leadership race within 6 months after an election makes sense and after much discussion of the pros and cons of the various options, Council proposed a resolution which reflects this view. Some, both on Council and within the membership have voiced reservations about changing the constitution in a manner which would in the present situation delay the leadership race, but the majority agree that the risk of running a federal election campaign with a stand-in leader is unacceptable. However, when the votes on the resolution are counted at the BGM it will be, as it should, the membership who will decide. Whatever the outcome, I'm confident that we will campaign the next election with Elizabeth as leader and the Party solidly behind her.
Peter Johnston.
Council proposes a leadership review
Peter, as a Federal Councilor, you should be very much aware that Council did NOT propose to have a leadership race 6 months after a general election. G10-c29, the Council's resolution to change the bylaws surrounding the leader's term, is proposing only a review 6 months after a general election.
There is a huge difference between leadership races and leadership reviews.
Mark Taylor (Cypress Hills - Grasslands)
http://ReportonGreens.blogspot.com
This statement is purely my own opinion and no way is to be mistaken for the viewpoints of the party
Removal of Leader?
This particular sentence seems to be incorrect:
"As for “job security,” the Constitution allows the leader to be removed at any meeting of council by a 2/3 vote."
My perusal of the Constitution only finds the following reference: "The Leader may be removed from office by motion at a general meeting, following a non-confidence vote supported by 3/4 of Federal Council at a meeting called for that purpose."
Job Security
I'm sure you are correct David. However, that does not materially change what Elizabeth was inferring; in politics there is no job security.
Apparently she was referencing the 2006 constitution, which allowed for the leader to be removed at anytime with no notice.
Peter Johnston.
What if...
As Peter notes, Council proposed a resolution that would change the leadership process. However, as I understand it, that proposal requires a 60% vote of the general membership to take effect. In light of the fact that the proposed change can hardly be taken for granted, it would seem incumbent upon Council to carry on under the current constitution. By that, I mean that Council should have been planning a leadership contest in 2010 as is mandated by the constitution.
I've seen no evidence of any such plans. Such planning, in my opinion, would not be "contingency" planning but rather planning for what is the strongest possibility: that we continue to operate under our constitution. If there is planning underway for a leadership contest/review to take place in 2010, then maybe a Council member could jump into this discussion and inform the membership.
What if we'd had the proposed policy in place and a leadership review/contest was mandated for 6 months after the November 2008 election?
As I'm sure most members will recall the so-called "coalition crisis" happened in December 2008 followed quickly by Harper's first prorogation. Since that time, we've been in basically the same situation as we are now in. That is, the threat of a snap election hangs over us.
Is the threat of a snap election any greater now than it was in the first 5 months of 2009?
In a minority parliament, the threat of an election is almost constant. In a minority parliament, there will never be an ideal time for a leadership contest. As the 2008 experience shows, an election can even be threatened within 3 or 4 weeks of the previous election. With the continued strong showing of the BQ, minority parliaments will likely be the rule, not the exception, for the foreseeable future.
By failing to address this question until 2010 and then by seemingly failing to plan for a leadership race as mandated by our existing constitution, I feel like the Council is pressuring the membership to accept their proposal as a fait accompli. I am resentful of that pressure and the supposition that the membership will rubber stamp a significant change in policy.
Jim Elve
The opinions expressed here are purely my own and do not represent official Green Party of Canada policy or positions.
Why paint yourself into this corner?
Elizabeth:
Why paint yourself into this corner? It pretty clear to just about everyone that the incumbent doesn't have to resign as leader until after they have lost a leadership race. By nailing your flag to the bogus idea that you would have to immediately resign, you are cutting away any chance for a meaningful compromise at the BGM.
I think that the fact that you call the new constitution "rushed and poorly conceived" just shows how little you know about the GPC. The process wasn't rushed. It was manipulated by various people in the party to try and wait out the clock and sabotage a directive that was very clearly wanted by the membership at the Calgary convention. It was poorly conceived because the selection process was manipulated by Council to ensure that the people who sat on the Athenian jury were not representative of the membership but rather their own weird little factions.
Even with all these crazy attempts at manipulation, the current constitution was seen as being such an obvious improvement over the old one that the membership overwhelmingly approved it. Up to the very last minute, however, the Council was trying to sabotage the effort by saying that the new constitution would have to pass by more that 75%---even though at the same time the Green party was complaining that referendums on proportional representation that had a higher threshold than 50% were undemocratic. I was negotiating with the Ombuds Committee to deal with this last illegal roadblock when the word came down that the membership had passed the constitution with over 80% approval, making the appeal irrelevent.
The world didn't begin when you were born Elizabeth. And the Green Party of Canada wasn't created when you were elected leader. The big issue here is that the Federal Council has consistently shown nothing but contempt for the constitutional process of the GPC and the will of the membership. It is clearly in controvention of the constitution because it does not have a leadership race in place right now. And that constitution was passed with a very clearly super majority. If you do not like what the constitution says about leadership races, then there was the opportunity at the last convention to make suggested changes to the bylaws. (It is very easy to change the bylaws, that is one of the things I pushed for in the new constitution that the people trying to sabotage it were unable to change.)
I understand that you are an officer of the court, Ms. May. Surely you can understand how important the rule of law is to protecting the rights of the "little people". That was what the Magna Carta was about, I believe. The leaders of the state are supposed to only rule through universally applied law, not by direct fiat. The constitution of the GPC is what protects the rank-and-file membership of the party from arbitrary rule by both the Leader and Federal Council. As leaders of the Green Party you should be most willing to abide by the rules of our party---not the least.
There is no reason why this issue cannot be resolved by some sort of compromise at the BGM. I've even made some suggestions myself on my blog. But the primacy of the constitution has to be upheld if there is ever going to be any fulfillment of the Green Party's belief that it somehow does things "better" than the other parties. Don't burn your bridges, Elizabeth. The GPC isn't all about you---it is about all the members, especially the ones who have toiled away for decades to try and get this crazy mess of a party to start following some sort of logical and sane process.
I know that at one time you were training to be a priest in the Anglican tradition. Let me offer two suggestions. Jesus Christ suggested that "blessed are the peacemakers". Here is an opportunity for you to heal some wounds in the party by taking that first step towards peace. You can personally offer to meet with people in a workshop and work out some compromise arrangement with everyone else who has submitted resolutions dealing with the leadership race.
And as someone training for the priesthood you must have been exposed to some of the thinking around forgiveness and contrition. There are a lot of people who are very angry in this party because of two things.
First that you told people to vote strategically in the last election. I know that in Guelph people were very upset to see posters put up all over town with a quote from you that people should vote Liberal instead of Green if there was a chance of a Conservative being elected. It broke a lot of people's hearts to see those posters, Elizabeth.
Secondly, this attempt to do an end run around the constitution also hurts people. "Little people" have to do things the hard way. They have to play by the rules and go through the huge effort involved in building up consensus for a constitutional change. Just ignoring the work that they put into this process because you are famous and able to do so hurts them. It makes them feel small and unimportant. Is that what you set out to do when you got involved in environmental politics? Is that all that much different from what you complain that Stephen Harper is doing?
No one expects you to be a saint. As a human being you make mistakes like all of us. If you stood up at the BGM and made a genuine act of contrition that said something like
"I'm sorry I asked people to vote strategically in the last election. I got caught up in the media spotlight and forgot that the election really isn't about me, its about all the thousands of volunteers who worked hard to build the GPC in over 300 ridings in the country. The podium I get during the election comes from the work of all those volunteers. When I told voters to vote strategically I was ignoring those volunteers and making decisions for them that I had no right to make. In defense of my actions, all I can say is I hope you can understand how terribly corrosive the media spotlight can be to anyone who gets caught in its gaze.
With regard to the constitution, I can only make a similar apology. I came to the GPC from outside and I didn't make the time to try and understand it properly. I thought that it was like an NGO like the Sierra Club. But it really isn't. It is an experiment in trying to mobilize members in every part of the country. It isn't just about members supporting a board of directors and paid staff. It is about everyone having a little bit of the control and a share of the spotlight. In politics a lot of ordinary virtues are vices, and a lot of ordinary vices are virtues. Humility is a vice in a political leader---it gives the media something to play "gotcha" with. "Blowing your own horn" is a virtue, it gives you that sound bite that will get you in the CBC news. It was wrong for Federal Council and myself to try and over-rule the constitution that members of the GPC worked for years to bring to its present form. There are problems with it, but the way to deal with those problems is to go through the process lined out in it---not simply do an end run around it. I promise in the future that not only will I honour it, I will use my influence with Federal Council to encourage them to honour it too. "
With a public display of contrition like this, you would get a huge boost of forgiveness from the GPC. It would unify the party like it has never been unified before. If you made this sort of speech and then worked with the other people to come up with a real compromise that dealt with their concerns you would have a unified party like you have never had before.
Do the right thing and it will be very good for you----.
Leadership Race
If the membership votes to have a leadership race in 2010 we shall have a leadership race in 2010.
Peter Johnston.
This topic is aggravating.
(1) Tying leadership contests to general elections when there will be minority governments as far as the eye can see will in fact bankrupt the GPC. (Can you go bankrupt when you're already in the hole?)
(2) Leadership contests need to occur at predictable times. If the Federal Council were so concerned about calling a leadership contest that runs through an election cycle, then they should have proposed measures to automatically defer a leadership contest if a general election or a by-election is called where the leader is running as a candidate, and then if the leader is elected and forms a government, the contest would be cancelled. Straight forward, not proposed, nor supported by the Federal Council.
(3) Ms. May abused her position to facilitate the distribution of a self-serving communication. This is not morally acceptable, regardless of whether or not it is permissible. There doesn't seem to be any specific reference to this, just a general politics-as-usual vague rejection that you intervened.
(4) There is some mention that Ms. May, a lawyer is confused about what the constitution says about a recall style provision. I'd expect that she'd know the correct rules and not quote a defunct constitutional article.
(5) Ms. May, and her supporters here like to point to the recent GPC performance improvement, but they ever neglect to point out that in many ridings, we are the only option available if you don't want to vote CPC, LPC or NDP -- ie, we are *THE* protest option.
As far as national leadership, what has our leader done to facilitate EDA development? I dare say each EDA has to do everything on its own: polling, voter tracking software, marketing, websites, talking points, etc, etc. We don't have mature EDAs in many areas, this type of infrastructure is paramount to our success.
We are not the only protest option
OK, #5 is getting a bit silly. To say that if someone doesn't want to vote for the CPC/LPC or NDP (might as well as the BQ there) that we are the only option is a bit bizarre. The vast majority of Canadians do not think of the NDP (or BQ or GPC) as a government in waiting. They view it as the CPC/LPC fighting it out for power and if you don't like those options you have (in virtually every riding) the NDP & GPC as alternatives (plus BQ in all Quebec ridings).
Are there reasons to be annoyed by the results of the last election and to state we should've done better? Yes. However, to start saying that we were the only protest option is just plain silly. By the same token you could say that those who didn't like any of the parties in the debates only had the CHP to vote for in many ridings thus explaining their great result...oh wait, they didn't have a great result.
I'd love to see a poll that checks when a person joined the GPC and how they feel about these leadership issues. I strongly suspect there is a dividing line between the long time members and newer members. It will be interesting to see how it all ends up after the next election, whenever it may be.
As to the 6 month post-election idea - it makes the most sense in a minority parliament situation as that is the lowest odds of an election period that exists (despite Harpers threat of one in 2008/early 2009).
John Northey
Wellington-Halton Hills
1 year, 47 weeks
John Northey wrote: "I'd love to see a poll that checks when a person joined the GPC and how they feel about these leadership issues."
That's how long I've been a member, and when I joined I was supportive of the leader, and had no clue about the internal difficulties, which appear to have intensified since I joined. I've been watching fairly closely, and my view is we should have a leadership race now (and it'd be best for the party if Elizabeth didn't run).
It appears that we also need to clean house on Federal Council - too many Yes Men and Yes Women I gather. (That's not a reference to the t.v. show or whatever it is - I haven't seen it.)
In many ridings, GPC is only "protest" option.
We have no idea how many people voted for us as a protest option because no party has a vested interest in finding that out. Regardless, there are many ridings where the only candidates are CPC, LPC, NDP and GPC.
Some ridings also have marxist lennonist and christian heritage, but I suspect people do not want their vote to be misinterpreted as supporting those parties. In the case of BQ, anglophones (and probably non-francophone minorities) aren't going to vote BQ in protest.
I suspect the GPC scores the least unpalettable alternative when one doesn't like his/her primary choice (being one of CPC, LPC or NDP.) I guess that's something going for us, but let's be realistic about what Ms. May has actually accomplished. Our rise is concurrent with huge voter dissatisfaction with the three large traditional parties. A non-trivial part of our increased voter support is likely, therefore, to be transient.
Regarding membership length and leadership perspective, I doubt that's a helpful way of looking at the problem.
So NDP is NOT a protest option?
Bram, are you claiming the NDP is not viewed as a protest vote by the majority of Canadians? Honestly? Yes, they have run a few provinces but they have never been close to being the official opposition federally, let alone the government.
You can say that some are uncomfortable voting NDP, but the number who are doing a 'protest vote' and would not consider voting NDP but instead vote Green would be a low number indeed. We were the only option in most non-Quebec ridings in 2004 and 2006 as well yet we had far fewer votes than in 2008. Or was the NDP a protest option then but not now?
As to membership length - it seems we've had a fair number of comments from newer members that without May they wouldn't have joined. Myself, it was Jim Harris who convinced me that it was a party worth considering at election time (joined about a year after May was elected leader). I suspect most, including myself, had no idea the party had a 4 year rule for leader elections given all other major parties go based on a review post-election or wait for their leaders to resign after horrid campaigns or natural retirement. All who assume that I'm sure were as surprised as I was when I learned of it thus leading to a split between those who joined since May was elected leader and those who were here before that (who most likely were well aware of the rule). That doesn't mean everyone post-May supports her, or that all pre-May don't. It more is along the lines of how 25% of the 25 and under crowd support GPC while 5% or less of those 65+ don't - there is a split and there are reasons for it. To ignore it is to bury your head in the sand.
John Northey
Wellington-Halton Hills
The Green Party without Elisabeth May as it's Leader? Please!
The Green Party without Elisabeth May as it's leader would be a dead party folks! Loosing in my opinion and estimate, a great deal of it's members.
Anyone having seen Ms May in a debate, in any of the many media interviews or other has soon realised that she has exceptional abilities, knowledge and all the required political wit to represent extremely well this party and it's ideas.
It is very sad that I could not attend the convention at the end of this month due to other commitments.
Having said that, whatever the party decides, I strongly believe thast Ms May would win any leadership races within this party. No contest! And we should cease questionning the Leadership of this party. We are in good shape here folks, no doubts about that, including the recent addition of George Laracque, who will represent the Party and be the spokesperson for the Quebec Province. Let's not catch that desease that seems to go around in certain other federal parties!
So let's concentrtate all the energy and unite strongly in getting as many green candidates as we can elected. You watch, as soon as we get 2-3 candidates in ther House of Commons, we will see a major rising interest in the party, and a rush of Big Names seeking membership and get involved with the party. And That Folks is the opinion of a little guy from Victoriaville, Québec
Go Green Go, (including the Green Machine in Riderville, Saskatchewan) and go George go!
Let's Support Our Leader
I am quite disturbed to see such vitriolic discussion concerning our leader, especially in a public forum! I am really disappointed with the lack of professionalism in some of the previous posts. Although Elizabeth has made a few tactical errors(as all leaders do) the progress we have made wouldn't have happened without her wisdom and credibility. She is the best thing the GPC has ever had. The GPC must win at least a seat in the coming election to maintain any sort of credibility. It is time to stop the mud slinging and resolve the issues being debated at the convention. Move on, unite and show total support for our leader.
Greg, interesting comments indeed
Greg, interesting post.
I support our Leader, as I believe she currently represents the best shot we've got to elect someone in the next federal election. I also believe that electing a Green somewhere in Canada is absolutely critical to the future success of our Party.
As an engaged member of this organization, though, I see your comments as profoundly disturbing. Seems that your preferred course of action on the issue of leadership contests is to council the membership to stick its head in the sand and only resolve our issues somewhere in private, presumably behind a firewall. Then you go on to suggest that these matters should be debated at the convention. Do you not realize that the BGM is probably the worse place we can find to air our dirty laundry, given that the BGM is completely open to the public, and press will be in attendance? By calling for ending this discussion in public, you're calling on everyone who has expressed a concern with our Fed Council's actions to sit back and keep their mouths shut. And that's hardly an appropriate sentiment fo the expression of healthy, grass-roots democratic processes.
Look, just about everything we do is in public realm, and that's frankly the way it should be if we are going to instill confidence in Canadians that we're serious about doing politics differently. The BGM is also in the public realm. If anything is going to be resolved, it will happen in the public realm. And we Greens should be proud of ourselves for both having this debate in public, and for finding a resolution to it (if we are able).
As for stopping the mudsling, May had a chance to come out with this blogpost and actually address some of the criticism which has been levelled at her. She chose, instead, to ignore that criticism, and offer only her perspective on what's been going on. And while that perspective is good and interesting, it does not tell the entire story, and it doesn't address the real issues which have unhinged a number of us in this party. Her comments will do nothing to unite the Party, and will not gather her support. Instead, she has drawn the battle lines and has indicated that instead of looking to heal the Party, it's game-on at the BGM.
What's happening here isn't about a lack of professionalism in the ranks of the Party. It's happening because our Federal Council decided it was best to change the rules around leadership contests at the 11th hour - literally at the end of a 4 year term for our present leader. They've brought this upon themselves.
I sincerely hope that we can find the path towards unity, but that path requires a bit of a detour before we get there. Both sides need to step back, and conciliation needs to be reached. In order to do so, however, our leadership must acknowledge that they've failed to live up to the Constitutional requirements of this party, and have been playing games in order to manipulate online voting.
I haven't seen anything which suggests Fed Council understands any of that. So when you decry the lack of professionalism on this site, let's not forget that Council's lack of professionalism in fulfilling its own mandate led us here in the first place. Council still has the power to change things; those who oppose have few tools. As far as mud-slinging goes, to me it looks like May's supporters are the ones slinging the most mud around (and I'll count your comment on a "lack of professionalism" as some of that mud).
And this makes me very sad and angry, because I, like Yves above, also believe that Elizabeth May is the best thing that happened to this Party. Like John, above, I also believe that a significant number of new people have been attracted to this party because of May. Like you, I also think that we must elect someone in the next election to maintain any sort of credibility.
Given what I believe, I think that the Party has been going about things in an unnecessarily confrontational way. It's time to ratchet down the rhetoric now, on both sides, but to get us there so that we can "move on", Fed Council needs to make a public admission that its handled this issue very poorly. In fact, they've bungled it so badly that we now find ourselves in this mess. People won't be able to move on until others back down. It has to start with Council.
I really really hope that those involved give some serious thought to staring a healing process, or else we are putting a lot more at risk than just the outcome of the next election.
"Sudbury" Steve May
Leadership Race
Council thought long and hard on this issue. After much discussion and consulting with lawyers it has been decided that the best option is to do what the other national parties do. If you disagree then that is your choice but it does mean that you consider yourself smarter than thousands of politicians and their lawyers who have followed this procedure over the years in the other parties.
Making changes in the constitution is not taboo either, it's been done at previous BGMs. Resolutions are put forward and the members vote on them, this may include making changes to the constitution. I hope and expect that those who disagree with any resolutions will vote against them. I fail to see what is wrong with this procedure.
If the membership votes down G10-C29 then we will have a leadership race in 2010. Both Council and Elizabeth realise this and will make no effort to subvert the will of the membership. We know the score and are dedicated to do as the membership directs.
I expect that this comment will provoke a strong negative reaction from those who are dissatisfied with this state of affairs and from the few who wish to elect a new leader now.
Whenever the leadership race is held I am sure that Elizabeth will lead this party into the next election and I also expect her to be among the GPC's first MPs. I would like to have less doubt and discontent with her leadership and more unity and encouragement for the incredible level of hard work and sacrifice being done by those staff, executive, candidates and volunteers who make up the core of this great Party. Lets celebrate the fact that we are the fastest growing political party in Canada. Lets be proud of increasing our vote by more than 40% in the last election while the other parties lost votes. Lets be proud that the GPC is one of the most successful Green Parties amongst the more than 70 Green Parties around the World.
Peter Johnston.
Smarter than your average bear
Since you raised this issue, please take note of the fact that I used to practice law. I worked at a top Canadian firm, and I have a law degree from one of the best law schools in the country. I have tremendous respect for the legal profession. They are extremely hard working people. That said, I do "consider myself smarter than thousands of politicians and their lawyers" as are many others (and you don't need a law degree to fall into that category.)
As a former lawyer, I'm not impressed, and to be frank I'm actually offended by the manner in which you are attempting to justify Federal Council's handling of the leadership issue by reference to a legal opinion. Let's see this opinion. Post it on the site and provide a link please (in the Members Zone). I'd be very surprised if it says Council couldn't organize and hold a leadership race, but rather must wait until the last minute and try to change the Constitution of the party (and if it did, I'd question it). Legal opinions are opinions and they aren't infallible.
Response to Steve May
Steve May,
I am a card carrying member of this party, but due to professional obligations don't have time to be actively involved in party politics with any regularity. I won't even atttempt to come across as someone who has knowledge of the backroom discussions of people like you because my understanding is not at that level. I in fact represent the average card carrying member of this party, as opposed to the select few who are actively involved in EDA's and attend the conventions. I vote Green, make my donations, am occasionally involved with my EDA, and vote on the resolutions that I comprehend prior to conventions. I really have no idea how council works as my professional life has not allowed time to get involved to that level.
All I am saying is that this party should appear completely united and solid going forward. My comments are anything but unprofessional, but rather suggest that the party will lose support going forward if it isn't united. It is members like me who have to believe our party is making progress and cohesive. It is members like me who the party cannot afford to lose. Not all support for this party is "deep green", and can erode if the party isn't solid.
I was really disappointed to see combattive comments towards our leader in a public forum. Maybe these discussions should be going on behind closed doors in some online capacity. I was perhaps mistaken to suggest the convention....
I totally support grassroots democracy and understand the myriad of backgrounds that GPC supporters have come from. All that being said it is not in the best interests of a party to be having a leadership convention around an election. I will leave it up to the people who are more actively engaged to come up with the best democratic approach to make sure this doesn't happen.
Legal Opinions
Our legal advice was that due to the Elections Canada rules it would be very difficult for an incumbant leader to remain active in that role while contesting a leadership race. Not impossible but very difficult. In such a situation the leaders activities have to be seen not give them any advantage over the other contestants. In practice, this would mean that the incumbant would have to step aside in order to mount an effective leadership campaign and an interim leader would have to be appointed. If a leadership race was in progress or had to be held at a fixed date as is the case under the constitution as it is now, and a federal election was triggered, we would have to campaign that election with the interem leader in place. This would not be a good situation for a variety of reasons. I was advised that this was the opinion of legal council and to be frank, it seemed a no-brainer.
Peter Johnston.
Re: Legal Opinions
A few points: (1) I'd still like to see this legal opinion, although it appears irrelevant to the issue of why FC hasn't called a leadership race. We should be having one right now; (2) The suggestion that E. May would have to step down appears overstated. It's been discussed a lot, most recently here (see Ken Summers's comments); (3) even if E. May ought to step down for the race, then so what? My understanding is that, in the event a federal election is called, the race can be postponed and E. May could be reinstated; (4) Even if E. May can't be reinstated (not sure why not), then that's life - we can't be held hostage to the day to day election threat. We are supposed to be a serious party here. This is game playing and nonsense. If the FC proposal for leadership reviews was a legitimate rule change clearly in the interests of the party it should have been done at the last BGM.
That's Life?
Oookay. If we go into an election with an interim leader that would really, really flop in the publics perception. Remember the Liberals after the whole prorogation mess the first time? How they quickly put Ignatiff in as leader due to a fear of Harper calling a snap election and Dion still being leader for it? How do you think Dion would've done in a snap election? We'd be looking at a Harper majority right now is what I suspect would've happened as who would vote for a party led by a guy they don't want leading them?
Political reality is we need a leader who appears to be supported by the party membership. Having mandatory elections every 2 or 4 years is just asking for problems unless we can find a time no one would ever call an election (campaign from July 1st to August 31st? - used to think December/January would be safe but that was proven wrong a couple of times - and a 2 month campaign would be viewed as far too short and helpful to an incumbent).
John Northey
Wellington-Halton Hills
Reinstate
We could just reinstate the leader in the unlikely event an election is called (if that's the manner in which the membership wants to handle that contingency). Is there some reason that can't be done? Anyway, the race would be over by now if Federal Council hadn't deliberately dropped the ball.
Actually, no. Our
Actually, no.
Our constitution has no provision for an interim leader or for re-instating them so claiming that we could "just" do it is not correct.
We still don't actually have provisions for an interim leader, which should have been resolved.
Ultimately, we had a council who felt it was in the best interest of the party not to have a leadership race until the last possible moment. Members elected a council with that opinion, and I know certain members who held a different opinion and were critical didn't get elected at the last council election. That was a democratic choice of member. The issue wasn't on the table, but we chose the best people to make those decisions and this is the result.
If you want a council with a different opinion, they could have ran and campaigned.
They didn't have to hold a contest until the end of the year. They put it to the members, with their recommendation, and the members 76% have just agreed to delay it.
Should this have been done at the last BGM, perhaps, but it happened at this one in the members motions and all is settled.
Democratically of course!
You may disagree with this, but the timing of the leadership contest was entirely subjective. If you felt Elizabeth is the best leader for now or the party had too much invested in SGI you likely were of the opinion that council did the right move by waiting to ask members their opinion if they wanted a contest before entering into a disruptive content.
If you felt we needed new leadership, you probably felt members should have directly been asked who they wanted to have as leader without being asked if they wanted a contest and had that happen alongside the AGM.
Both options were viable and legitimate, but subjective. There was a risk waiting until the BGM, there was a risk holding it early. In hind sight, neither risk occurred. There wasn't a spring election, so we could have had an early contest. But members have shown they didn't really want one.
Now, this whole thing is finally settled until the next election or next BGM.
Pictou AGM
Also, one other note. Had the constitution been changed at the 2008 BGM in Elizabeth May's own riding, there would have probably been screams of it being fixed... At least Toronto was neutral ground.
Ignatieff's better than Dion?
FWIW, the Liberals' panicked move of installing Ignatieff as leader without any leadership contest or membership vote has been widely criticized by Liberals and non-Liberals alike. Ignatieff has not proven to be much, if any, better at attracting support than Dion was. At one point this year, LPC support dipped below Dion's lowest level.
As long as we're discussing a whole new set of procedures, I don't see much wrong with Michael's suggestion that we could suspend the contest and reinstate the leader in the event of an unexpected election.
Off topic: the best thing about the Grits crowning Ignatieff is that it drives environmentally-concerned voters to the Green Party. Pro-tar sands, pro-nuclear power, pro-Afghan war extension... I'm not even sure Ignatieff could be called a small-l liberal.
Jim Elve
The opinions expressed here are purely my own and do not represent official Green Party of Canada policy or positions.
Safe Time to Race
Was your legal cousel unaware of the fact that the only time any party in Canada can be GUARANTEED to not have to worry about a 'snap election' is in late August? That's when our SCHEDULED leadership race used to be scheduled for. By the way, how much money did our party spend on this legal counsel? Oh, and when does Frank deJong get to slide into the GPC leadership role seeing as he's the one who touched this all off in September 2009 and Federal Council was complicit in facilitating his request ever since then? Why in the name of God were we asked to keep this secret at the 'Bear Pit' session at the BGM? Frank DeJong says 'jump' and Federal Council says 'how high'???? Not me. No way.
I remind all Greens that our constitution states "Participatory Democracy...requires...individual empowerment through access to all the relevant information required for any decision, and access to education to enable all to participate." I guarantee you that the 74.3% of our (voting) members who voted for G10-C29 'Party Leader Term' were NOT granted this right.
OMG.
I've been agonizing over whether or not to send this for 4 hours. The means employed by Federal Council to get out of a Leadership Contest in 2010 went against the Green Principle of Participatory Democracy in so many ways, and the end result (c-29) goes against the Green principle of Participatory Democracy in so many ways.
C-29 enshrines the probability that our party will be ripped to shreds internally just as the Liberals have been. That is the way the other parties do it. Get ready.
Sarah Hutchinson Algoma-Manitoulin-Kapuskasing
I Voted!
One thing for sure, we certainly have an articulate membership.
Elizabeth May was and will be Elizabeth May with or without the Green Party of Canada (GPC).
The GPC is fortunate to have had members that elected her to our leadership. Something tells me Elizabeth May will have more press coverage than the GPC if she were to lose a leadership race, because, she is Elizabeth May.
I for one will never forget her hunger drive for a few people in a small place for a better quality of life.
That is who our leader is - thank you Elizabeth.
Helen C Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe "I Consider it the main problem facing the planet, humanity and all the creatures living on the planet: we've industrialized nature" Robert Bateman
Council's actions and timing
Put yourself in the position of federal council; do you run a leadership race when the risk of election is always on? The logistics of holding a leadership race are huge. The costs to the party and to the candidates are also substantial.
I believe that the constitution, that we the members approved, has failed our needs. We, the members of the GPC have made the mistake.
Sometimes we try too hard to not be 'like the other parties', but this is one case where a post-election leadership review makes a lot of sense. It saves time, and it gives members the opportunity to grade their leader's performance.
Our collective error has enabled this mud-slinging to go on. We have bigger issues to focus on right now, and I suggest we focus on them. Get your EDA ready for the next election, both financially and organizationally. Learn what you can from our Convention, and work to building this great party into an amazing party as we move forward. A leadership race will happen soon enough (although never soon enough for a few, but that will always be the case unless a leader has 100% support).
Harper's Fault
If he had waited until October 2009 to have an election according to his own fixed election act, the GPC leadership contest would have happened directly after it and the timing would have been perfect. We made our constitution reflect what we assumed was a fixed election. When that was shown not to be the case, we had to react!
When to stand behind your leader
The facts for me are quite simple:
1. Elizabeth May is at this time the ONLY Green Party member who is nationally known AND respected. What would possibly be of benefit to us from not standing behind her at this time?
2. Elizabeth May has done an outstanding job as leader of the party. We are increasing our voter support, we are gaining a reputation not for a crazy fringe party but a mature political movement with main stream but progressive ideas (mostly).
3. There is the threat of an election anytime. It is CRUCIAL that the Green Party build on it's past successes this time and elect someone. We are going to find ourselves without a face for the party that is known or trusted for quite a while if there is a change in leadership. Can we take that risk? Why would we if the current leader is probably doing the best job out of any leader of the big parties in Canada at this time?
Therefore: It makes absolutely no sense to hold a leadership race at this time, and if we are truly a maturing party we need stand together behind her until the next election. At that time it will be very appropriate to question the direction of the party and we will have sufficient time to expose a new leader in the national media. So at this time the only possible option for me is to stand behind my leader and give her all the support I can. She deserves it.
I do support a mandatory leadership review at every convention. Like in every other party, if the leader does not receive overwhelming support (probably about 80% or more support) in such a review he/she will step down. I fully trust that Elizabeth May would do the same.
Simon Strasser - Sudbury - www.simonstrasser.ca
Who's rules are these?
Q: Who has the following rules: "The party's Leader and Deputy Leader are elected every two years by a postal ballot of all party members."
A: Green Party of UK (adopted in 2007)
I believe fair, vigorous and regular Leadershp Contests are good for a Green Party. See you all at the BGM!
Rob Brooks, Hull-Aylmer
2008 was also the first time
2008 was also the first time they had elected a leader. They have a post-election leadership contest this year. ..
Co-Spokespersons
Before 2007, Green Party of UK had co-spokespersons. They changed in 2007 to the titles of Leader / Deputy Leader.
Rob Brooks, Hull-Aylmer
Review makes more sense than race
I really struggled with voting for the leadership resolutions. I voted yellow on both because I was still unsure. However after some thought I think I can confidently say that a leadership review (like in the Green Party of Ontario and other major parties) makes sense.
Elizabeth has made some gaffes, however Ignatieff, Harper, and Layton, have also made many mistakes during their terms as party leader as well They do not resign over mistakes unless it costs the party dearly. We didn't do much worse than I was expecting in 2008, I think we were unable to meet the expectation produced by our own hype.
A full on leadership race would come at a huge financial and organizational cost. Something the GPC cannot afford to do if it would also like to prepare for an election campaign. We are better served by waiting until after the election. Our candidates are better served as well.
I have been critical of Elizabeth May's leadership in the past. I am still upset about some of the decisions she has made as leader and over some of the things she has said. However overall I can't see anyone doing a better job.
I supported David Chernushenko when he ran in 2006. But you know what, I don't think his leadership would have produced better results. In fact he is not as well suited to the position as Elizabeth and thinking back I am happy Elizabeth was chosen over David (and Jim Fannon...)
I didn't want to rant, but there it is. I didn't proof it because I'm going to bed now, I'm sure I made some errors... Thats just my two cents for what its worth. See some of you in Toronto!
Matt Casselman
Leeds-Grenville
Matt Casselman, Leeds-Grenville Greens www.leedsgrenvillegreens.ca
Division
Long or short it does not matter in time this decision to postpone a leadership race will not sit at all well with a large portion of the party and will create great division within us. I am not so sure why there is such a cult of personality behind Elizabeth, or why people seem to think that she is the only good thing we have going for us, we are a strong and growing party and Elizabeth's success on the media stage has as much to do with the growing support of the party as it does her admittedly good oratory skills.
There is however a downside to Elizabeth and the circle that surrounds her, and that is their apparent inability to see that we are seen as a single issue party by the vast majority of Canadians and it is hurting us in our progression. Many people point to our "meteoric" rise in the polls and say "look we are doing great", but I say "look at how many votes we are leaving on the table", the general publics total apathy towards the CPC and LPC and both of their leaders lack of leadership should be driving voters to us in droves yet we still do not have a seat and we still don't get past 12% in most ridings, and there does not appear to be any real questions asked as to why!
Elizabeth is well spoken, dynamic, capable, and committed to the green movement and I am sure she has contributed to our increase in the polls but I most certainly don't think she is irreplaceable and if anyone else does, I think we better give up as a party because we will only last as long as she lives then I guess we're doomed....
Or maybe, just maybe we could have had a leadership race where "the single issue status" and the future of the Green Party is debated at length and the party and the Canadian people benefits from this airing out of this tired label, the party would emerge stronger and more united then perhaps ever before and just possibly with a newly reinvigorated Elizabeth May as leader.
See you all at the BGM
Single Issue
The problem with the continued degredation of the natural environment is a major issue with Greens around the World. This is as it should be; we cannot have a sustainable society without having a sustainable environment. However, to say that the executive are unaware that we are often seen as a single issue party is not true. Actually, if you go through our press releases you will see that they refer to a wide range of topics. Humanitarian issues and the need to develope green collar jobs are just two subjects that are emphasised on a regular basis.
As for the personality cult you mention, it seems to me that it is her critics who are hung up on her personality. Certainly Elizabeth is very knowledgeable, works the media well and is personable at all times and in all circumstances. Her high output and ability to switch on a little charisma when required is another valuable talent which is a neccessity for a successful politician. However, if you spend time with Elizabeth you will quickly see that she sees herself as a regular Canadian who is dedicated to changing society for the better, period.
Is she irriplaceable? No of course not, and for those of you who think council is caniving with her to hang onto power let me tell you that is definitely not the case. Do you think she is doing this and wearing herself out on our behalf for fun? Far from it, when Elizabeth feels that she can do more good elseware she will go willingly and most probably with a sense of relief. Until that time we should do our utmost to make her arduous job as rewarding as we can and let her know we are behind her every step of the way.
Peter Johnston.
Peter
Peter, I think you have significantly misread my comment above so I will clarify here.
SNIP
The problem with the continued degradation of the natural environment is a major issue with Greens around the World. This is as it should be; we cannot have a sustainable society without having a sustainable environment. However, to say that the executive are unaware that we are often seen as a single issue party is not true. Actually, if you go through our press releases you will see that they refer to a wide range of topics. Humanitarian issues and the need to develop green collar jobs are just two subjects that are emphasized on a regular basis.
RES
I do fervently believe the environment is the single most important issue we have and anyone who is a Green should think similarly, where I and the leadership seem do diverge is where it stands in our communication plan and internal ranking. You are right, we do occasionally talk about something else, for example representative democracy, or humanitarian issues or, green jobs(sort of half different) or........I run out quickly of anything else to add because we pretty much don't talk about anything else. In a political party your communication plan is all about
On these three Items we fail miserably, STOP don't say it let me finish! Yes we communicate our environmental policy in spades to both existing supporters and new supporters, but I contend that as far as the environment goes, that’s a captured market, if you feel fairly strongly about the environment well you already vote green, and are not suddenly going to start voting Liberal because they take Kyoto as the party mascot, and you are never going to trust the Conservatives on this front either, so why do we keep messaging this topic? Long story short because those at the top have a hard time getting there headspace into anything else, we don't really engage in critical thinking because if we did we would have started doing things differently a long time ago. For example I have heard some complain that we do message other things but the media only ever covers our green announcements, I would then suggest you cut the green announcements down to about zero unless there is something so egregious that we simply had no other choice but to speak up, like another BP disaster or something on that magnitude do you think the public much less our supporters are going to forget that we are green? Instead we should only message the 95% of our policy that is not Strictly Environment portfolio and I would even lay off pointing out the environment thread that runs through most everything, until the media and the public get the message that we really care about all the other aspects of governance as well, from social justice, to tax reform, to better health care and education, in fact if anyone asks what we think about Green issues we should respond with something like "what do you think, we're the GREEN party!" and quickly take back the sound bite by flipping it over to something else that’s topical like the Census, Omar Khadr, or the prison farm closure, or whatever is the thing of the day.
SNIP
As for the personality cult you mention, it seems to me that it is her critics who are hung up on her personality. Certainly Elizabeth is very knowledgeable, works the media well and is personable at all times and in all circumstances.
RES
The "Cult of Personality" I refer to is the number of people in the party that seem to literally reverence the ground Elizabeth walks on, this was not directly pointed at Elizabeth or council and I did not intend to suggest that Elizabeth encourages it or anything but more to the body at large, a healthy respect for a popular leader is good but single minded devotion is very problematic as it leads to a lack of critical thinking and puts way to much focus on the leader to the point the leader becomes the brand. These people need a wake up call and Elizabeth is the one who needs to deliver it. Elizabeth is a fantastic, great, hard working and dynamic leader and if we have a leadership race it is likely she would win, and with that I have no problem, but to keep on with the same old same, old and not have that refreshing, invigorating nightmare called a leadership race is a short sighted mistake.
Lastly the main point of my post was that the party is already in two camps, the Environmentalists and the Pragmatists, and those divisions just got a whole lot deeper, if we don't do something about it and soon we could see the party start to fling itself apart the way the Liberals did when they split off into two camps, they are still recovering and they have a whole lot more history then us.
Circular arguments not convincing
1. Having a leadership contest does Not necessarily mean you don’t support the current leader. It is an essential component for a truly democratic party to periodically renew itself. Which may result in the re-confirmation of the current leader, or, in a new leader who can take the party even farther. In either case, its a rejuvenation.
2. Its not the potential destruction of E. May. Whatever happens, she will always be the premier champion and leader for the ‘environment’ in this hemisphere, and an irreplaceable component of the Green Party team.
3. All this gobbledygook about having to step down as the leader during a leadership contest leaving us ‘defenseless’ should an election suddenly occur is tedious. If we have a minority government for 5 or 6 years, therefore, we should be forced to have no leadership contests during all that time? Unworkable.
4. Of course during a leadership race, the leader should be temporarily suspended as the ‘leader’ so he or she does not have an unfair advantage over the other candidates. But should an election arise, the whole process including the suspension is just cancelled and deferred to after the election.
Leadership Race
1. Correct
2.Correct, except where you say Elizabeth is irreplaceable. No one is irreplaceable
3. Don't we have to have an election every 4 years by law?
4. To "just" cancel the leadership race and it's associated campaign and reinstate the leader would be a big waste of candidate's time and money. The momentum would be lost and we would look like amateurs. Why not have a set- up that would avoid such a situation?
Peter Johnston.
Good comments
2. As you say no one is irreplaceable. Its just my opinion, that up to this point I haven't seen anyone as thoroughly researched and totally active on climate change as her. Al Gore made a nice movie, but its knowledge and persistence that makes the difference, not a 1=time ego-trip splash.
3. The 4 year election law looks at this point to be unenforceable, i.e. it has no teeth. Harper has already broken it. He's put his own man in as GG, so who knows how long a 'minority' government can continue? We cannot go on forever being held hostage to the idea that an election is, 'just around the corner'.
4. Very good point. This would be expensive in both time and money. (I don't think it would make anyone look like an amateur necessarily. Stuff happens in politics and its how we run a campaign that people remember, not that a snap election was called catching everyone off guard.) I'm getting emails from the Conservatives asking for money and implying an upcoming election in the fall. But Harper's been using that tactic all along to play brinkmanship with the opposition.
I do think we need a leadership contest by year-end, perhaps extending into 2011, come hell or high water, or the consequences will be more division - that's something to consider above all.