Resolutions: the truth about deal-making vs. full slate
In a couple of posts, references have been made to resolutions passed at our last convention concerning deal-making with other parties. However, I believe their meaning has been misconstrued.
For one thing, we did not pass any resolutions stating that we would run a full slate.
Instead, there was a resolution put forward (G06-d08) that would allow the leader, with support of 2/3 of council, to unilaterally withdraw candidacy in at most 2% of ridings (i.e. up to 6 ridings). This resolution failed.
The general understanding was that this resolution would open the door to such deal-making - but in fact, it would have limited it. It would have meant that no more than 6 ridings could be sacrificed, and that the leader would need 2/3 support of council behind any such deal. It also specified the compensation required for any ridings whose candidacy was withheld.
Failing to pass the resolution has not had the effect of prohibiting deal-making. In fact, it has left the door wide open. The leader could refuse to endorse any number of candidates as per by-law 5.2. Although this by-law is probably intended to override an EDA which chooses an odious candidate, it can also be used in a deal-making context. 2/3 council support is required, but there is no limit on the number of such withholdings, nor any requirement for compensation. The only rule is that a riding gets to choose their candidate - whom the leader must endorse unless invoking 5.2. (This differs from other parties, where the leadership has full & unilateral rights of refusal).
Furthermore, there is no written requirement that the leader endorse 308 candidates - it is merely a recent tradition. Before 2004, the party only endorsed candidates where there was enough of a local organization to put one forward. Starting in 2004, the party began running a full slate. In practise, this meant that about 100 candidates stepped forward, and party organizers worked very hard to find the other 200 and get signatures, deposits, etc. Of those, many were parachute or paper candidates who would not have run without the support of the organizers.
[It would shock you to know how many 'candidates' can't even raise the $1000 deposit or get their 100 signatures on their own.]
Sadly, despite popular growth since 2004, we still don't have EDAs in more than half the ridings. [I apportion the blame between failures at the centre and laziness on behalf of members.] This means that if the party organizers don't go all out, we will not run a full slate. A full slate is not something to withhold - it is something we have to re-build every time at great party effort. To not run a full slate, the party organizers (at the direction of the campaign manager) would merely have to focus on something other than finding 308 candidates. That would probably cost us 50-100 candidates right there. [It would also free up the organizers to work more effectively in strong ridings.]
However, ridings without candidates would be randomly scattered, rather than where they might be key to some trade-off. So, if strategic ridings need to be offered, the leader is still quite able to ask those ridings not to run a candidate (in the case of an EDA), not make the effort to recruit (no EDA), or invoke 5.2.
If a riding were to select a candidate, and the leader were to refuse to endorse (for any reason), it would lead to some rather nasty internal strife. But if the leader asked nicely and offered compensation, it is quite possible that a riding could stand down one time for the general benefit of the party. We have not passed any resolutions that would forbid this. Likewise, if the leader can convince council to go along [when has this happened before?], any number of candidacies can be withheld.
So don't go thinking that the membership has forbidden deal-making. All the membership did was forgo an opportunity to constrain it.
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins
Barrie, ON
p.s. I have deliberately not stated my view on deal-making vs. full slate. I'll save that for after some comments are made.
- Erich Jacoby-Hawkins's blog
- Login to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Search
Email Updates:
Comments
Thanks for the Clarification.
The last GPC convention I attended was in 2000 (here in Ottawa - I was also webmaster/host in those days), so I haven't been as up-to-date about recent conventions. I find this clarification very helpful.
I have to wonder, however, whether the other parties take us seriously enough to even enter into any deal-making where they offer us enough value in exchange to warrant deal-making. The polling has been erratic, so I don't think anyone is counting on that. A key riding is obviously Central Nova, and it would be a major win to have Elizabeth in the house.
I also believe (as I wrote in a comment to Brad Thomson, nomination candidate in my riding) that now more than ever before people need to have the right to vote Green in every riding, even where the Greens can't win the seat. The vote isn't just a way for Greens to win seats, but to also send a strong message to whomever gets elected. It is our leverage in any future deal-making to show the importance of listening to the Green message.
That said, there are candidates in other parties that I personally support being in parliament. I spend a lot of time working on Digital Copyright issues, and I even donated to the campaign of Charlie Angus (Timmins--James Bay). He is a musician and publisher who understands the importance of media de-centralization and new media. I support his campaign despite the party banner he is running under, not because of it.
---
Russell McOrmond (Constituent, Ottawa South)
Check out my BLOG on Digital Copyright Canada.
Context is key
Erich, You are quite right in saying that the Central Party could choose to not run a full slate by either not helping to organize under-developed EDA's or by the Leader simply not endorsing some candidates for tactical reasons.
This however would be going against the clear intention of the membership in the debate around the Resolution in question. It was voted down after much debate (before and during the Convention) because a large majority of members did not want deal-making and anything less than a full slate.
This was the context and it had even played out in the Leadership race itself. It would be re-writing history to say that the membership voted down this Resolution because they wanted to give "Carte Blanche" to deal-making of the type that involved not running a full slate.
Strategy comes down to choices
Thanks for posting this Erich. I think that sometimes we have lost sight of the notion that running 308 was a strategic choice made by the party to achieve specific measurable objectives in 2004, specifically to achieve target levels of funding. This was a bold move and exactly the right choice for the time.
Now that those objectives have been achieved, we must remember that 308 is not the holy grail of political participation. There are still half of our ridings without registered EDA's, which means that there is no grassroots organization operating there.
I think that running a candidate in every riding is a noble objective. But I do not think that it is necessary, and there are circumstances under which it would be detrimental. For example, running a particularly poor quality candidate could damage the parties reputation, rather than enhance it.
I, for one, do not regard running 308 as a make or break issue for this party. Strategy is the prioritized application of resources. 308 is a choice, not a mandate.
Jim Johnston,
Lambton-Kent-Middlesex