The Green Party of Canada's Leadership race conundrum.
I was somewhat pleased to note that the GPC Federal Council has started thinking a little about how next summers leadership convention will be run, and they are also starting to consider the rules for the leadership contest that our constitution requires goes with the convention. I have heard rumours, (and more than just idle speculation), about some pretty exciting potential candidates from across the spectrum. This is really great news for the Green Party of Canada! The membership numbers are in a free fall, and we are in financial straights with a substantial election debt to pay off. An exciting 5 way, or 6 way race will re-invigorate the Party. There will be of thousands of new members added to the rolls, and the Party's share of leadership fundraising, and directed contributions just might save us from financial embarrasment.
So what's the conundrum? Well it goes like this; Elizabeth May has a constitutionally mandated term of 4 years as leader. That term expires in August 2010. We are in a minority Government situation, and as we are all aware, the next general election could come any time between now and 2013. The argument might be made that since the Party has given Elizabeth May $60k, plus her leaders salary, and three supporting staff positions to prepare for an election in SGI, (And before that $100k in Central Nova, and before that $70k in London), we cannot possibly hold the Leadership convention next summer in Toronto. After all, there might be a general election in full swing, and we cannot waste all those hundreds of thousands of dollars that we have wagered on getting our Leader elected.
There`s some merit in that argument as well, although I don`t think that we can simply make up the leadership race terms on the fly just like that. So there`s the conundrum. The Green Party of Canada wants to have an enormous, and much needed boost from a much aniticipated Leadership race. This boost cannot be had unless all of the various leadership campaigns have plenty of lead time to build their field organisations, and communications teams. Let`s face it, it takes time to build the team and plan that can win this contest, and in all fairness, our sitting council owes it to the membership to come clean with a fair and impartial rule book for the contest. We just won`t be able to recruit the very best candidates, and will have trouble getting the kind of resources lined up to blow the roof off, if prospective candidates cannot even be certain that a race will happen. Imagine if you will that you are seriously considering taking on the major task of winning the leadership of the GPC. You need to start recruiting, building, and committing a chunk of your life to this contest. I suspect that you will hesitate if 6 months before the contest is theoretically beginning, there was no rule-book, no time frame, no spending limits, in fact absolutely no indication of what the rules will be...
- Sharolyn Vetesse, impartial judge (photo credit Globe and Mail.com)
In the last leadership race, which was won by Elizabeth May, council struck an election fairness committee. It was chaired by Sharolyn Vetesse, if memory serves. I can tell you first hand that it was very equitable, and impartial. The spending limits were too low, and the contestants had very restrictive limits on how they could reach the membership, but at least the rules were clear, and applied to all. It would serve as an adequate model, provided the chair were truly impartial, and the spending limits were increased. It takes quite a bit of money just to travel around the country. It`s OK if you`ve got a book tour, or an EDA training tour to cover your travel costs, but if you are covering expenses to visit hundreds of EDA`s out of a $50,000 campaign chest, then you just don`t have enough money to make all the rest of a viable campaigns infrastructure happen. If the Party takes a tithe from directed contributions to leadership campaigns, then a $500,000 limit will allow proper national campaigns to take shape, without simply handing the Party to the candidate with the deepest pockets. If this sum seems too rich, I beg to differ. Please remember that it takes a lot of money to raise a lot of money, and if there's a 20% tithe, plus fundraisers, event hall rentals, promotional advertising for events, etc. etc. then it doesn't leave very much for prosaic things like travel expenses, and telephone bills. If you think it's no big deal, the winning campaign will have had to make a bare minimum of 15,000 phone calls. And when's the last time you had to pay for 30 or 40 train trips, hotel bills, and food for two or three people on the candidates tour?
So here`s what I think we need to know: When will the race officially start and conclude? What will the nomination procedures be? What access, and when will the candidates get access to membership, past membership, and supporter lists? What will the spending limits be, and what tithes and or fees will the Party charge for processing directed contributions? Policy regarding staffers involvement in the race; Will candidates have to resign from existing duties in appointed, or elected roles in the Party hierarchy? I for one will not be impressed to see a deputy leader drawing a salary, and gadding about the country on training tours while actively campaigning. (Neither would some candidates legal council I suspect). Here`s a biggie: Does the Party appoint an interim leader during the race? There`s lots to think about, and it should be done in a timely way. I hope I'm not alone in hoping for a vigorous, and strongly contested race next year. It could be the saviour of the Party in more than one respect.
- Matthew Day's blog
- Login to post comments
Search
Recent Comments
- Stephen LaFrenie |
- Stephen LaFrenie |
- Dan Grice |
- Erich Jacoby-Hawkins |
- Paul Maillet |
- 1 of 1828
- ››
Email Updates:
Media Releases
- Media Release | 07-Feb-2010
- Statement | 05-Feb-2010
- Media Release | 05-Feb-2010
Comments
Timing a bit more lax
I think you are making a reasonable but false assumption.
The constitution's by-laws state that the Party must have a BGM every 2 years; it must have a leadership race every 4 years.
However, these need not be held at the same time & place, nor even by the same method. (Practically, a BGM must have an in-person component, while the leadership race could be by mail-in ballot with no meeting). So it is possible to have (for example) an August BGM and a fall leadership race. (Or a spring one). In past this has not been the practice, but the current situation represents our first major leadership race during a shaky minority gov't situation*, and the first under this version of the constitution (featuring a 4-year term). So there may yet be other firsts.
Timing of leadership races is specified in two places:
2.1.4.2 All Council members shall be elected to serve a two year term or until their successors are elected, except the Leader who shall serve a four year term or until a successor is elected.
2.1.4.5 The Leader shall be elected in 2006 and every four (4) years thereafter.
I think it is reasonable to read 2.1.4.5 to mean the leadership race has to be held in 2010, which is 4 years after 2006; I don't think it can be categorically asserted that it must be in August 2010, or specifically on August 26, 2010.
The codicil at the end of 2.1.4.2 even seems to indicate a bit of run-over of the term, should one election fall later in its year than the previous election did (or should it need to be re-run).
I notice that 2.1.4.2 rules out your suggestion of an interim leader during the leadership race. (Note that I'm not commenting on whether or not that's a good idea, just how it is specified in our by-laws).
I expect that 2.1.4.2 was intended to apply in case of a leader resigning with a by-election, whereby the new leader would serve out the remainder of the 4-year term. However, as written, it seems to do the opposite - a leader elected in a mid-term by-election could make the case that this by-law specifies that a new 4-year term has commenced. That would conflict with 2.1.4.5, however, so it would be a quandry. I guess we hope it never happens (until after we clarify the rule).
* Technically, 2004's race was during a minority, but Martin had only just been elected and wasn't in danger of imminent fall. And the race was serious only to Tom Manley, who ran a respectable campaign; John Grogran ran a token protest campaign, while Jim Harris, coming off our largest growth election ever, barely campaigned at all yet still managed to win in the first ballot vs. Manley, Grogan, and NOTA.
Thank you Erich
Very good summary Erich,
The conundrum still stands. The leadership race is mandated in the 4'th year, there's no way around it. That will be a bugger if there is no spring general election. I'm looking forward to what suggestions will come forward now. Since council is debating these issues, I expect that some of the councillors will be willing to share their thoughts on this. It's obvious that we need clarity now that we're mere months away from the leadership campaign's proper start date.
I expect that the GPC's legal counsel will need to contact Elections Canada for a ruling on whether a leadership race can legally co-incide with a general election campaign. That needs to happen NOW, or else we'll all be running around wondering what to do next spring. If they can coincide, then we will be free to nail down a contest time frame, and let the chips fall where they may. If they cannot, then we're going to have a very vibrant BGM next year, and there will be a wholesale gutting of the constitution.
Wouldn't it be a laugh if we could challenge a general election call, because it would breach the elections act by co-inciding with our Leadership race ;-)
What's a BGM
That's all. What's a BGM? (I hate acronyms)
BGM = biennial general meeting
Sorry, the BGM is our mandatory biennial general meeting, just like an AGM (annual general meeting) except we only hold one every 2nd year. It is the main chance for members to propose or amend policy or update the constitution.
In the old days of 2-year leadership terms BGMs always overlapped with a leadership vote; in 2006 (perhaps for the first time, due to our new 4-year term) it did not. Council elections are also held then, although now they are held on off-years as well.
Of course, it isn't really required that they be held together. There are many reasons they would be, and a few that they might not.
160+ readers, and no opinions?
I'm pretty surprised that over 160 people have read this, but no-body wants to stick their necks out and actually state an opinion. Erich clarified the constitutional issue nicely, so the facts are on the table. The conundrun is clear, and is vastly more important than skipping some by-elections, strategic voting controversy, or even the council elections that generated some interest. Doesn't anybody even have some thoughts on constitutional fixes to avoid this in the future? How about race timing.
At a minimum, I expected somebody to jump all over the $500k limit I suggested.
Changing the Constitution should have been done in Pictou
ok Matthew, I'll bite and venture an opinion / comment. I think the rules are there to help decide what to do in certain situations, especially when there's subjectivity involved.
From the constitution it's clear a leadership race must be held in 2010. The constitution can be changed but I don't think we have the organizational sophistication to pull that off in the near future with mail in ballots before a convention.
The time to have done that has passed for this cycle. The rules should be revisited and constitutional amendments suggested but to have that process driven by last minute thinking will make it look like the goal posts are being moved.
What needs to be done right now is to put clarity into everything that surrounds the race such as spending limits, nomination deadlines, fairness guidelines etc. There's still time for that if we start now but the clock is already ticking.
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.
OK I'll take you up on that...
Perhaps there are some members out there with opinions on this issue that they would like to share. If so, I strongly encourage them to post here or in the members zone so that the rest of us can learn. My take is that there has probably been no response, simply because most members don't even know what the heck the issue is.
Leadership race?
Constitution?
Internal Party Democracy?
Etc...
I'll admit that I don't even know that much, even having been a member for almost 3 years.
Remember as well that membership has roughly doubled since 2006 meaning most members have never been through this before.
So if there are members out there with opinions, please post so the rest of us can learn and have an informed opinion.
I'll say to start, that a 5-6 candidate leadership race sounds very exciting and would like to see a civil and intellectually stimulating debate.
Thank you for raising a very important issue. I look forward to learning more.
Matthew Piggott
Kitchener Centre
Not a big issue at this point
There are a few reasons why I don't think it is a big issue right now. Namely most think Elizabeth May will continue to be the leader until after another election regardless of anything else.
Why? Simple. We have a party based plan to elect the leader, she is by far the most visible member of the party, while the media may not love her they know her which is big in getting at least some visibility, and if we replace her without it being due to her clearly stating she has decided to step down for reasons that are media friendly (ie: she needs more time with family, there is another opportunity which is clearly better to everyone, etc.) then it could become a major PR bust for the party and cost us many, many more members than a leadership battle would bring in.
Now, if we have another federal election and the results are very negative (fewer votes than last time plus not winning a seat) or just mixed (minor improvement in votes but still no seat) then a full leadership contest makes a lot of sense.
So, regardless of how one feels (positive or negative) about Ms. May she is the leader and should be through the next election regardless of if it is in 2010 or 2012 baring any major changes in her life or major scandal.
Wellington-Halton Hills
Should we simply toss out the constitution?
OK John,
One minor detail is that Elizabeth May, or any leader is elected under a constitution. This is legally binding, and enforceable. Elizabeth was not elected leader for life, or until she feels like leaving. She was elected to a four year term. Council members have a duty to uphold the constitution. The constitution governs council, not the other way round. Council has no right to invalidate the constitution, that remains the sole prerogative of the membership. Your proposed course is not a case of ignoring attendance records of council members and such minor constitutional infractions. It's about throwing the whole darned thing out the window.
I would say that the major PR bust would be if the Leader tried to stay beyond his or her legal term, without renewing his or her mandate from the membership. It wouldn't work, because people would complain about illegal coups. etc. It would only take one displeased critic to file a complaint with Elections Canada, or initiate a court action, and we would get more media attention than we could ever wish for.
Still, it's an interesting thought that there might actually be that much support for Elizabeth that the Party might be willing to risk so very much. With so much support, why not seek a renewed mandate? That way the legal niceties are observed.
I think that what needs to be done is pretty much what Ard said above. We need to determine specific timing, and rules for the contest, because it has to happen next year. Any suggestions as to timing? Any proposals regarding rules?
Not Tossing, Understanding Political Reality
Political reality is if we have a serious leadership convention - ie: one where anyone could win - we could have poor optics. Of course, the opposite could be true too - if we have a joke convention then we could look like the Liberals.
Hrm. Probably the best thing, given the rules and the political realities, is to do a leadership contest, schedule it for mid-summer thus when no one is crazy enough to hold an election (one hopes), and see what happens. Elizabeth May would have a major advantage of course, as would a Ontario based candidate (thanks to being able to get out their vote a bit easier - mail in or not getting people physically there or excited because it is nearby makes life a bit easier) although Ms. May's advantage would be much larger. In truth, if she couldn't win it then a new leader probably would be needed as it would show a lack of support internally.
An interesting situation, but in truth the solution is, most likely, setting it up so we won't cross over an election (hopefully - one never knows with the CPC, they could call a mid-summer one and use their money resources to get out their vote) and hoping the other parties don't hold off on an election until the fall as that could really mess things up if we ended up with a new leader, or if a majority occurs as our leadership conventions would now be set to conflict with the elections.
Wellington-Halton Hills
I think you're right John
John,
Personally, I agree with pretty well everything you said here. I find it hard to believe that the election would cross the start of a new school year. The CPC has an enormous advantage when turnout is low, so they might be tempted, but as we have seen, if they do anything that could be interpreted as forcing an election when their core vote is very busy, and not much interested thank you, then there would be an electoral price to pay.
How about this then, Do the leadership convention in the third week of August. IF there is a summer election, suspend the race for the writ period, to resume 1 week after writ. Do the convention in a more flexible venue than the Metro Convention centre, and option two different time slots. (Metro convention is the most expensive facility in Canada, so it might not be the wisest choice anyway). Exercise the first choice option if the general election falls in the spring, or revert to the contingency date if warranted at decision time.
It's a bit messy, but so is politics. So long as it's all open, and the time frames are totally public, then the campaigns can plan for two contingencies, with enough lead time to execute plan A or B.
As far as the popularity, and/or need for leadership race or revue, I think that if the leader is popular enough, then he or she will win easily, and reaffirm their mandate. If they aren't then there is renewal. There's no danger to the Party in holding a race periodically.
I hope people reading this are starting to realise that boring constitutional issues do actually matter. I guess there will be a few motions to debate at the convention to adapt the Party to a perpetual minority government. It's the new norm in Canadian politics.
Good issue to have brought up
Thanks Matthew for pushing on this issue. It is important that we all think it through. My early thoughts have adjusted somewhat the more I thought about it.
No matter how you cut it a leadership review is required every so often, and having it set in stone as every 4 years is a good idea but we have switched into a perpetual minority government situation which has changed a few things. The idea of having alternate dates set is smart, but a bit of a challenge to manage - I would guess the best move is a 3 month spread, so if the first is cancelled due to an election then (should the results be poor) someone can jump in right after. They would start from behind of course, but if things go poor enough they could still win. 3 months is a lifetime in politics although it would be too short for a new person from outside the party to come in. There obviously would have to be a few weeks for people to be able to announce they want to run should an election occur forcing the cancelation of a leadership campaign.
When it comes time for someone to put together the paperwork for this there will be a lot of things to consider.
Wellington-Halton Hills
I like it!
I think this line of thought contains the best possible solution: I really would like to not operate in fear of a looming election, we have no control over when it occurs, so why not plan accordingly?
Factoring out a federal election: setting an election date to coincide with the BGM seems to make the most sense in terms of party building and exposure. So why not decide to do that, and create a contingency plan that might resemble something like what you and Matthew were talking about?
I sincerely hope that Federal Council comes out of their meeting this weekend with something along these lines.
Why Here ?
I am not in any way discounting this discussion.
But I feel that it would better served on the MEMBERS pages rather than in the public domain. If I am wrong, so be it, but we need to present ourselves as an organized, positive alternative with a strong leadership at all times.
Agree with Mr Gadsby
I agree with him. Personally I think these blogs should all be in the member zone. The idea that Harper's brown shirts could be reading this to use agnst the Green Party makes be nervous. That is why I have limited my comments the last while.
Private vs. public discussion
I've been reading this blog site for a couple years and every 2-3 months a comment pops up about how we shouldn't be discussing issue X in a public forum. Obviously everyone should be courteous and intelligent in a public forum and allow a little bit of thought and reflection before posting. But isn't the Green Party supposed to be about doing politics differently? Shouldn't there a place to discuss issues not being covered by the main stream media?
Also, I find the comment above about "Harper's brown shirts" a little disturbing. Are you saying we should give in to fear and censorship?
In the past posting comments in the members section was a one way ticket to having very few people ever see your ideas. Maybe some sort of critical mass can happen there so the members section is actualy a useful medium for expression? Until that happens I'm happy to post my blogs and comments in a public venue.
This green blog aggregator may also be of use to some:
http://canadiangreens.feedcluster.com/
If you don't want to directly connect your posts to the Green Party then you can create your own blog and perhaps cross-post on this site.
Matthew Piggott
Kitchener Centre
Open discussion is more important
I don't get it. How could it possibly harm us to have, and display a range of opinions? It will definitely harm us if, through ignorance, we all march in lockstep into bad scenarios.
Who gives a damn if 'outsiders' read about our internal politics? If they have any sense, they'll realise that this is a pretty interesting way to help inform the membership. They'll also realise that these blogs are open to all sorts of odd, and not so odd ideas. Perhaps they'll get interested in a Party that can wash their laundry in public. If they are simply partisan hacks, then to hell with them. If they cannot find something to misconstrue here, then they will just make it up.
The members zone is a waste of time, precisely because it's secretive, and tucked behind a security barrier. I will continue to view the existence of this open forum as a litmus test. When it goes, I'll know that the Green Party is finished as a political movement in Canada.
If we aren't doing anything wrong, then we should adhere to our values, and do it in public. I would be upset if the campaign manager were to post on target ridings, and the details of the platform before the time was right. I would not care one bit if the same information was posed by a member, because it would be pure speculation. Anybody quoting what they read here as representative is a hack.
Blogs
I have mixed feelings about these blogs. They are entertaining, and can be informative, but overall I believe they are more of a handicap than anything else. I believe most members posting here have a sense of pride and ownership in the GPC. While that is good, these blogs may give the impression that the dozen or so members who blog the most are the members who are running the show (and I don't believe that is actually the case). With respect, the blogs give the impression that the GPC is amateurish, disorganized, divided, confused, and lacking in confidence and commitment. If the GPC wants to gain the confidence and support of the electorate, it ought to act like a serious organisation.
Also, you have to wonder what a casual visitor to this site who stumbles on the blogs will make of them. Since the redesign, people will mostly end up here by first clicking on one of the blog posts on the home page (probably Elizabeth's post). That gives the impression that these blogs are more than just personal opinion, informed or otherwise. Casual readers have no way to determine how long each of us have been members, how much we know about the GPC and its policies, whether we are sane, et cetera.
I was once in those shoes
By which I mean a "casual visitor" to these blogs. But look where I've ended up now! These blogs can attract people to the party. Get it?
Yes it's true "everyone" can post on here be that the leader, members of staff, reps on Shadow Cabinet or "just a member." Isn't that the beauty of it? And especially if we're going to claim to hold values of Participatory Democracy and Respect for Diversity.
If you're worried about people not knowing who you are then you can start by putting in your signature at least the riding that you are from. No harm done there. If you actually hold some position within the party, then you add that too for context. Just look at my signature below.
Also for the record during our policy development prior to the 2008 BGM there were about 600 members who voted for each resolution which represented a little under 10% of the total membership at the time. An even smaller amount of people (1%?) actually wrote a policy. So if you're worried about small numbers of people representing the party... By the way, this is still much better than any other federal political party.
Matthew Piggott
Communications Chair
Kitchener Centre EDA
Get it
Certainly these blogs will attract some people, particularly those who like to discuss and debate policy matters, and political junkies generally. However, most people are turned off by that sort of thing. Open discussion and debate are anathema to many Canadians, as they view it as hostile and negative. The Canadian thing is to be polite and embrace relativism, don't rock the boat, watch some hockey and have a donut. I'd estimate that 80% of Canadians reading these blogs would not come away with a more favourable view of the GPC. They'd probably find the discussion here elitist and academic and not grounded in reality. That isn't the impression you want to leave people with if you are trying to convince people that the GPC is fit to run the country.
Blogs
This isn't the first time I've seen this issue come up and I've only been here a couple of years.
I think part of the challenge is the lack of good blogs in Canada where discussion generally is thoughtful and not full of people with axes to grind (we have a couple but not too many). This leads to many here who have opinions feeling this is the 'safe' place to post as only GPC members can reply.
As to the general public, most do not read or go to blogs. Check the blogs on the various news websites and you'll see tons of comments from a small group of people, normally CPC or Liberal hacks, and little real discussion. It doesn't cut down the value of the newspapers columns or reduce public opinion of them from what I can tell.
The only changes I would advocate are...
Wellington-Halton Hills
I'm not the boss of you
I'm not the boss of anyone but I've made a personal decision to be very restrictive in what I say. I'm impressed that the above poster knew what I meant by "brown shirts". Everyone else can do as they want and when the new year turns and I get some more donation room I will make appropriate decisions I suppose. I agree with the above comment that it makes the party look divided and disorganised. The idea of discussion for me is to see different points of view or advance my own arguments. I am open to having my mind changed. What if I change my position and then sometime later my old position is thrown up in my face like "hey at one time you were for/against such and such". I look like a hypocrite and lose credibility. The only way it could never come back to haunt you is if it is private. Nobody can tell me that the blog posts regarding the guy complaining to Elections Canada about the Saanich riding and blasting the hell out of May is of any benefit to the party or a reasonable discussion. As far as disclaimers nobody reads them. If it is hosted by the Green Party website people will assume it is endorsed by the party or that the discussions are a representative sample of the membership. Anyone who thinks otherwise is not facing reality. I am sure the people running the party cringe at some of the comments here including some of my own . . . which is why I have halted my comments for all intents and purposes and would actually like all my posts erased if it is possible. But to each his own.
There was an internal GP poll awhile back
This poll asked the question, which of the 6 Green Values do you think is the most important:
Ecological Wisdom
Sustainability
Social Justice
Non-Violence
Respect for Diversity
Participatory Democracy
So what would you pick? Or, let's say you had to rank them? I'm guessing that Respect for Diversity and Participatory Democracy would be low on your list of priorities?
Matthew Piggott
Communications Chair
Kitchener Centre EDA
Yes Martin but how else will they ever know?
Hi Martin,
I still maintain my position outlined above, that open discussion amongst ourselves is valuable, and what you wrote about people running the Party cringeing is very much to the point. Council acts in isolation from the Party. There is no robust consultative mechanism. They get elected to council, then they get sucked into a vortex. They lobby each other in circles, and believe me, 12 conflicting views all get represented as following some value or other putatively held by the membership. Heavens forfend that these oft made assertions should ever be confirmed by actually consulting widely. They don't spend any time canvassing the membership for their opinions. They canvas vocal and influential EDA exec's, and each other.
This is why I promoted outsiders for council, because groupthink, and consensus emerges, sometimes on pretty irrational basis. If their actions, or inaction is the cause of a cringe-making moment, then perhaps what they consensed, or muddled through was not such a great and representative thing after all. I really hope that I made some people cringe about simply missing the recent by-elections. I'm sure that they know I'm not going away, and that if they do it again, I'll make them cringe far worse. If it takes shame to motivate, then at least the mechanism exists to cast a spotlight on misdeeds, and errors. If I were wrong, and they were right, they can feel free to refute me right here. I'm not so proud that I wouldn't cringe myself if I was caught out in an error.
I'm all for effective messaging, and I agree that image becomes reality in politics, BUT I don't think that it matters so much that we can operate without any realtime checks and balances.
If you doubt the currency of this opinion, then I suggest you look at some of the polls about public reaction to the PMO overcontrolling the mesaging of the government, and the CPC. It is one of Harpers real vulnerabilities, and it is a source of distrust amongst Canadians.
I've said all I'm going to say
Well I have stated my opinion. I think concerns about the by-election etc could also be addressed in the private forum including my own criticisms. Your arguments address the issue of membership having a vehicle to sound off or criticise or put concerns to the federal council which you say is isolated from the membership. I have no argument for or aginst this position because I honestly know nothing about the mechanics of how the Green party is run. I'm here because of policies and as I told a party organiser I have no agenda or loyalties except to good ideas. I am not going to defend or support the federal council because at this point I am uniformed.
What you don't really address is the issue of why the whole world should be able to read about green member shredding their own party for all to see on the internet. Freedom of speech and membership communication to the federal council could just as easily be done in a members only section in my opinion. As I said I'm done with this. To each his own but I will be reading these blogs regularly so I hope the bloggers are all prepared to defend and justify your comments if/when I ever meet them.
As an edit go to the Doug Finley Interview blog posted here where they made them remove the article and post just the link to the article. The Conservatives are watching and reading and as their track record shows WILL use whatever they can to achieve total power over the Canadian people. So think and write carefully or your words could do more harm than good.
What's best for the party?
Many people have an opinion on what is best for the party based on short term considerations. For instance, they might want to go into the next election with our current Leader. Or they may want ... well pretty much anything.
The point is that we have a Constitution and it says we will have a Leadership Contest in 2010. Doing anything but following our Constitution, even due to "political considerations" - just isn't allowed. Our Constitution is the highest authority, much higher than immediate "political considerations" that change often within a day or a week. Of course we must respect the laws of the country - wouldn't want to run afoul of the Elections Canada Act for instance.
The way I read it is that the people that wrote and passed the Constitution didn't want the Leader to be judged by election results, but did want them to be judged, or renewed at predicateble intervals. Four years was thought to be a long enough time to get to know the potentials and performance of the person elected. It pretty much allows that the Leader will be allowed to contest a minimum of one General Election before being reviewed. Seems to be working just fine. For sure, the scheduling is a little awkward in a minority situation, but as long as you allow for the possibility of a writ period in the timeline, everything is just fine.
Our Green Party is only as strong as the members that form the party. There are many people that could assume the Leader position. Each will have strenghts and weaknesses. It is certainly narrow-minded to assume that any particular Leader will be the "best" for us, since who knows what the future holds. We have a really great Leader now and as we grow and become stronger and move forward into the future, we will continue to need great Leaders.
Rob Brooks, Hull-Aylmer
Constitution
There is obviously a problem if the GPC constitution lead to a situation where we have to conduct a leadership contest during a federal election, or worse, immediately before an anticipated federal election.
I'm not up on the GPC constitution, but I would assume that if the executive simply doesn't organize a leadership contest, the current leader remains leader and there is very little anyone could do about it for quite some time.
Re: Constitution
Constututions evolve
Bram,
The constitution evolves over time. The leadership cycle was set when we were all starry eyed about the fixed election date law. When that was cynically dumped, it caused some problems for the current leadership of the GPC. I'll leave it at that, but as you can see, it's up to us, the membership to resolve the problem. That's the nature of the GPC, we the members are NOT powerless, we set the ground rules. We do actually do politics differently from the other Party's. Perhaps you thought it was propaganda, for which you could be forgiven.
It is the Elections finance act that imposed a strong leader on the GPC. Our constitution actually doesn't give much power to the leadership. It has been a convenient scapegoat for many centralising measures by this, and even the previous Party executive (leadership). 'The lections act made me do it'.
Our constitution does still govern though, and it is a legally binding article of association. In the past, an independant, and prior to today an impartial elections fairness committee has been formed to ensure that the chief spokesperson, ( otherwise known as the Leader), and council are selected by the membership in an unbiased manner. I've been prodding on the blogs because this commitee hasn't been struck yet, and it's way past time when fairness issues become relevant. I don't want any leadership, ever, to be setting the terms for a contest where they may end up being replaced by the membership. Now that council is all cozy cozy, and on the same team, I want to see this overdue commitee struck, and I would like it to be visibly and obviously impartial.
Now, the old PC's were totally notorious for twisting and bending of the rules to favour this faction, or that. Boy did the lawsuits fly! Do you want that for our Party? Just set a fair set of rules, and when debating it, say what you mean, and mean what you say. Can we not simply act in good faith for our mutual benefit? If we will act in this manner, then why the heck shouldn't we do it in the open? That would be far more impressive than protracted legal actions getting noticed in the press.
The staff will observe these
The staff will observe these blogs, as we see Catherine and others on here once in awhile. Elizabeth may read them, but her schedule is really hectic so I doubt she has much time for them.
Ultimately, the only people who will read these blogs are members who really, really love the party, and a few odd ones who hate us looking for fodder.
Outside of an election campaign, I doubt the 95% of Canadians who aren't party members visit any of the political sites.
While they may not be viewed or used as much as we like (or more than we like), they are valuable in that they give members the opportunity to share their thoughts and our part of a open dialogue.
Blogs are great way for us to share information, and I know the Catherine is looking to have featured blog posts featured predominantly on the main site.
This won't be rants like this, but if you have a well written article or opinion piece that is consistent with Green views and has a solid writing style, send it to Catherine.
Remember - Online <> Private
Regardless of members only or not, if it is on the web then it isn't truely private.
Suppose, for example, the CPC felt the GPC was a 'problem'. They'd quickly have some generic staffer sign up as a member (cost $25 per year) and sign up for full access. Then they could go through the members only section as much as they wished under that person's log in. Don't have to post, just sift through. Then if a damaging comment is made release it to the media via whoever would do so without revealing their source and enjoy the mess.
Think that wouldn't happen? At least with these open forums we can quickly respond with 'we are an open party which allows comments by all members unlike other parties who are too afraid to let people speak their minds' or something along those lines to shift a negative into (potentially) a positive. The other way we are acting just like the CPC - keep all opinions other than the official ones hidden from view and cover it up if they get out.
Wellington-Halton Hills
To do so would be against the law...
...And a major scandal. When you sign up to be a party member you affirm that you are not a member of any other political party. I suppose someone could find a way around this, although if they did we would hopefully expose them and they would bring shame upon their party.
As a humourous side note, the Parti Quebecois used telephone voting for one of their previous leadership races. Some prankster (a neorhino?) signed up a tree at his house as a party member and actually voted.
The name he used? Gerard LaPlante!(or something like that)
Odds of one of the big 2 breaking the law....
Given the events of the past - from the sponsership scandal to the CPC having multiple issues with Elections Canada - I wouldn't put anything past them. All it would take is one person in one of their offices, say, letting their CPC membership lapse and then signing up for the GPC while still working for the CPC (nothing illegal about that I'd suspect) to dance around the law (ala the 10%'ers, the cheque logos, etc.).
Also of note is how sites like Google do archives of sites and sometimes end up grabbing areas that are private but not private enough shall we say. As their technology improves getting through firewalls will occur more and more often 'by accident'.
Always remember - anything typed is the same as something videotaped or written on paper. It can and will be found when you least want it to no matter how much protection appears to be on it.
Wellington-Halton Hills
The only rule for being
The only rule for being excluded as a potential member of the GPC is being a member of another party. AFAIK you can be a CPC staffer but only be a member of the GPC.
Yes, I'm sure that would happen. Having any such discussion anywhere is public, but because names are attached and may involve high profile individuals, this is where the concern should lie.