A strategic mistake
The deal between Elizabeth May and Stéphane Dion to not run candidates in each others' ridings is making headlines across Canada. I disagree with this deal and wanted to outline my reasons why. I'll use the email sent by Elizabeth to Green Party members as a vehicle to examine the issue in some depth:
Dear member of the Green Party of Canada,
Assuming our technology works, this message will reach you very close to the time that the Leader of the Liberal Party and I jointly hold a press conference in Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Today, we change the face of Canadian politics. Today we will demonstrate that the Green Party is a serious political party, running to win in ridings across Canada.
This is an unfortunate way to start this discussion. There is an implication that the Greens have not been seen a serious party and that we have not been running to win. But we have been taken seriously since we first ran 308 candidates - this is most easily demonstrated by the fact that we are now included as a choice in every major poll about federal politics in Canada. And we have been running to win since 2004, as demonstrated by our efforts to elect Andrew Lewis in the BC riding of Saanich-Gulf Islands. In that election, the party maximized the amount we were allowed to spend in the riding, but, unfortunately, still fell short. A more recent example is Elizabeth's own efforts to win in the London North Centre by-election in November.
We will also be making it clear that the planet does not have time for the old, tired, cynical game of politics. We do not have time for games at all. We are serious and we need to put our country and the planet first.
You will get no argument from me about the gravity of the environmental crisis facing the planet. However, it is a weak argument to suggest that those who disagree with a given action or decision are doing so because they don't put our country and planet ahead of politics. I can't speak for others, but my disagreement with the deal, as explained in this posting, is based on an analysis that we would have more effectively been able to improve the situation by means other than making a deal to not run candidates.
That is why Stéphane Dion, a man whom you know I admire on a personal basis, and I will announce that our respective parties will not be fielding candidates in each others' ridings. Our joint statement is found at the end of this message.
I have discovered a lot about politics since becoming Leader of the Green Party less than eight months ago. I have discovered that there is a nastiness to partisanship that exceeds sense. It is essentially a form of tribalism, and quite primitive tribalism at that. As Leader of the Green Party, some would prefer I never said that Mr. Harper's policies are the biggest threat to our planet and our country, even though they know that to be true. They would prefer I never said that Mr. Dion is a man of integrity (even if we can all agree his Party has appalling baggage). I promised when I ran for leadership to be a relentless truth-teller. Even if that might be to a short-term disadvantage.
I agree that there is a nastiness to partisanship and that Elizabeth has every right to be a truth-teller and to make her viewpoints known. However, these issues are peripheral to the decision at hand.
The Green Party will always put principle and progress above petty partisanship. So I am proud of what Stéphane and I have agreed to do.
The problem here is that different principles can sometimes come into conflict. And I think the principles behind the decision to not run candidates are weaker than the principle that each voter should have the right to vote Green if that is the party they support. (Or to vote Liberal, for that matter.) That is the principled argument advanced by the Green Party ever since we first made the successful effort to run 308 candidates in 2004.
I am proud to be able to say that I led the effort to recruit those 308 candidates as a member of our 2004 federal campaign team. Getting those last few candidates registered was a lot of work by dozens of staff members and volunteers, but I think the effort was well worth it. In my opinion, running 308 candidates was the key turning point to legitimizing the party in the minds of most voters.
The small "308" pin we gave our candidates and supporters after the 2004 election is the Green Party award that I'm most proud of. I've been told the same thing by others. Unfortunately, the impression I'm left by the deal is that "the 308" has been turned into a bargaining chip, when, in fact, running 308 candidates in each election should have been treated as an integral reminder of how we got to where we are and what we are able to achieve. Something of that is now lost.
In addition to not running against me in Central Nova, he has signaled a willingness to reform our electoral system. This is real progress toward Green goals.
Herein lies the crux of the problem. Electoral reform was recommended by the Law Commission of Canada a couple of years ago. And Jack Layton has long promised to take action. Yet nothing has been done, and the reason is that it is more useful for the current political leaders to treat electoral reform as a minor piece in the game of getting and maintaining power for their party. Without a concrete commitment for specific actions, this signal from Mr. Dion has to be taken with a grain of salt.
You should also know that the door remains open to Jack Layton and the NDP to find some way to cooperate to achieve progress particularly in rapid reduction of greenhouse gases to meet Kyoto targets. I have been attempting to reach Jack Layton for months. I hope there is still some chance of cooperation.
As do I, since this is the type of cooperation between parties that I support. However, the agreement to not run candidates strikes me more as backroom deal-making than cooperation - and it is being portrayed in that manner by Mr. Layton. The Green Party only has one chance to be seen by Canadians as a party that does politics differently. One of the costs to be paid for this deal is that it will put a question mark in the minds of some voters as to whether that premise is true.
Please be prepared for this historic step to be misunderstood and deliberately mis-characterized.
Strategic analysis of and principled opposition to the deal is significantly different than deliberate mischaracterization. I hope my commentary in this post will be taken by Elizabeth and by supporters of the deal as an opportunity to reflect on the real costs that will be paid and to help them to prepare for the fallout from those costs. I also hope they will consider alternate strategies in the future when such deal-making is being contemplated.
Adriane Carr, Deputy Leader, is running in Vancouver Centre. We have made it a priority that she win, defeating Liberal incumbent Hedy Fry
It will be great if Adriane wins. In 2001, Adriane led the Green Party of BC to a very strong 12% showing in the provincial election, after being admitted to the Leaders' debate. The party then flirted with 20% support in the polls for a couple of years but dropped to only 9% support in the last election.
In my opinion, this stagnation is in part a result of focusing party efforts and resources on trying to get Adriane elected. It was not an unreasonable strategy to try - once. But we can see in BC that when Adriane was not elected, and there wasn't a strong base to fall back on, then voters decided to move on. I would like to see the federal party avoid making that same mistake.
Let's consider the parallels that exist between the GPC in 2007 and the GPBC in the early part of this decade. We have low membership numbers and resources that are spread thin. As a result, most voters have probably never spoken with a GPC volunteer providing details about the party and asking them to join. Our policies are different enough and complex enough that this community interaction needs to be done before we can generate more widespread support.
Like Adriane, Elizabeth is a charismatic and respected leader who has already lifted the profile of the party. These are assets that the party can capitalize on, but until we are able to talk directly to voters they can only bring the party so far. And we are still a couple of years away from having done that in most ridings.
I've outlined a strategy that I believe will help the Green Party overcome these problems in a way that could allow us to win Parliament by 2020. This strategy is based on building a broad base of support across the country. There are no guarantees of success, but we already have an example of a situation where a concentrated effort by the Greens to elect a handful of candidates has the potential to compromise the longer-term success of the party.
This is not to say that we shouldn't try to elect Adriane or Elizabeth (we should). However, I think we need to balance those efforts with the recognition that work on the ground that results in incremental percentage-point increases in our core level of national support will do more good for the party in the long term than electing one or two MPs in the short term.
(by the way, Mr. Dion never asked me to withdraw or alter any other ridings than those of the leaders.)
I think this is because it is in the strategic interests of the Liberal party to get Elizabeth elected, above and beyond any of the public reasons being promoted by Mr. Dion. In particular, I think the Liberals recognize that her election could serve to slow or derail the evolution of the federal electoral system to a system that includes a measure of proportionality.
Despite our best efforts, there is a very real chance that in the upcoming election the GPC will again elect no candidates under first-past-the-post. I keep making the point that we should run to win because it strengthens my next point, which is probably controversial. That is, not electing Green MPs in the next election will be more strategically beneficial to the GPC in the long term than electing MPs. It is not that I don't want us to win, but I think this statement is a fact.
My analysis is based on the fact that it is entirely possible that the Bloc will elect 40 or 50 candidates to Parliament, and we will elect none despite winning around the same percentage of the vote. This will impress upon the minds of voters the unfairness of the electoral system in the minds of Canadians, and the leadership of the other parties will actually have to do something to fix the problem. Once it is fixed (which means a measure of proportionality is introduced), then the Greens will certainly elect a couple of dozen MPs, at the minimum.
A proportional electoral system is strategically bad for the Liberals and Tories in particular, since it likely means they will never again be able to form a majority government.
On the other hand, if Elizabeth does win as a result of the deal, then it will weaken the argument that changes are required. The Liberals and other parties can continue to pay lip-service to the idea of electoral reform, while pointing to Elizabeth and saying "hey, the system kind-of works," allowing them to put off real reform for years to come.
A comparative example is the Leaders' debate. In 2004 and 2006 the other parties worked to exclude Jim Harris from this debate. It was do-able then, but a scant one year later the idea of excluding Elizabeth from the next debate is ludicrous. Certainly I think there are some strategists in the other parties who are going to try to exclude her, but to many of the rank-and-file members and MPs in those parties this will be seen as unacceptable. Most Canadians understand that fair is fair, and the leadership of those other parties are going to have their hand forced on the issue.
The same situation regarding the broken electoral system will be in play in 2009 if no Green is elected in 2007. This scenario will be to our strategic advantage and to the disadvantage of the other parties. I think it clearly illustrates how unnecessarily futile it was to make the token agreement to not run a candidate against Mr. Dion. It's like paying for repairs to a broken-down car that we don't even own, and would love to see taken off the road altogether.
Across Canada, Greens will be running against Liberals. We have significant (huge, when one considers NAFTA and other policy areas) disagreements.
This is a good example of why the party shouldn't count on Liberal supporters voting for Elizabeth. Many could choose the other parties, spoil their ballot or not vote at all. Certainly, a number of voters in the riding will feel disaffected and resentful of Elizabeth for limiting their choice. In my opinion, that is not a good way to show how their MP will represent their interests.
There are also a couple of flip sides to Elizabeth's arguments. For example, I think we need to consider what might happen if she doesn't win despite the deal. Certainly, an argument will be made by nay-sayers that "the Greens can't win even if and when the other parties bow out." Voters and the media will likely re-consider our ability to make good strategic judgements. It is entirely reasonable to run to win and not win, especially if progress is shown. Voters continue to be attracted to the party despite the fact that we haven't yet elected an MP.
Another point to consider is the value that we would gain by winning straight-up, against the odds and with no accommodations from other parties. Although it is difficult to predict if we will elect an MP this election, I think an elected Green MP is almost certain to happen by the end of the decade. Why put an asterisk next to this first victory?
Campaigns of Greens across Canada must be stronger and we must elect a solid caucus, not one or two MPs in the next election. Thus, it is clear we are not "endorsing" Liberals.
It would be great to elect a number of candidates, and I've seen here in Calgary strong candidates being attracted to the party with a conviction that they can win. But in my opinion, this deal doesn't really advance their campaigns. It could become an issue that will distract from their more important messages when they talk to the media and voters.
The Green Party is emphatically against strategic voting. But in the archaic first past the post system, how else is the Green Party to work to ensure the democratic will of the majority is heard? How else can we signal cooperation, not competitiveness, is our core value? How else can we signal cooperation, not competitiveness, is our core value?
There is a misplaced sense of urgency in this paragraph. Yes, the system is broken and yes, the crises facing the planet need to be fixed. But a deal that marginally increases the chance of electing a Green MP in 2007 is not the key to fixing these problems.
The implementation of many Green Party policies will have a significant impact on Canadian society. As such, widespread cooperation between parties and widespread support from Canadians will be required. But the objectives expressed by Elizabeth are already written into the party's DNA. I could offer many examples of how we are willing to cooperate rather than compete, but I'll just pick this quote that is written right into our constitution:
"To commit ourselves, and encourage everyone, to promote enhanced and socially engaged caring and compassionate values through research, dialogue, and example, as well as through increasing awareness of our own capacities to be caring and compassionate for others, ourselves, and life’s rich diversity"
I also think Elizabeth has underestimated the impact she is already having on the Canadian political scene and in the media. Her election will be a milestone for the party, but the costs for that election need to be balanced against the increased influence and profile she will have as an MP. I'm not sure that this increase will be that great, and as such I'm not sure that this deal strikes the right balance.
Your support through letters to the editor, etc would be appreciated. Thanks for your support, for your patience, and if you have misgivings, for your openness to the potential for real change. We live in interesting times and they just got a lot more interesting.
Elizabeth
We all know that to hope that someone lives in interesting times is an ancient curse. As mundane as it may sound, I think the key to making the world a better place is not to try to make things more interesting. In fact, I think making the world a better place is not a lot more complicated than walking and talking.
Canadians recognize the urgency of the problems facing nations around the world, and they want to choose the most effective way to address these problems. If we want their support, which I think we can get, then we need to meet them and tell them why our policies will work the best. Electing Elizabeth will help us reach that end but there are no shortcuts to the years of work that will be required to build a broad base of support by personally connecting with each voter.
I've outlined above the principled, tactical and strategic reasons I don't support this deal. However, I'm open to real change to the point that I hope I'm proved wrong.
---
These comments were initially posted on my external blog here:
- Kevin Colton's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
Deal conveys too much respect for Liberals
This deal between Elizabeth and Stéphane Dion, as strategically sound it may be for Central Nova, still leaves a bad taste. Although I am currently a resident of Ottawa, I was a resident of Saint-Laurent/Cartierville for many years. S. Dion was my MP and I am fully aware of his many shortcomings in that capacity on local issues. I fought the last election as a GPC candidate in an adjoining riding, but I had always wanted to be nominated in Saint-Laurent (even tried it with a previous party). So I have thought long and hard on what it would be like to run there. In fact, just after I took a job in Ottawa last summer, I was “offered” the opportunity, too late, to take the candidacy in Saint-Laurent/Cartierville. So, I could easily have been the odd man out at this time as a result of the leaders’ deal. In fact, my former official agent, who was seeking the GPC nomination, is one probable victim.
So much for the personal strife, let’s talk issues. We must not allow this deal to tie the hands of GPC candidates waging battles against other Liberals. Make no mistake – both the Liberals and journalists will trumpet the futility of voting Green when even our leader thinks Stéphane is a great guy and a great environmentalist. We have to resume promoting the GPC as the professionals on the environment and the Liberals (including Dion) as amateur late-comers. Dion, even as environment minister, was in office during escalation of emissions. He and his party were responsible for squelching all intelligent debate on the environment during the 2006 campaign. The Liberals are about expediency and economic prosperity. As much as Alberta, the federal Liberals fed off fossil fuel money to balance the books. Their hands are not clean, and Dion was part of that Liberal cabinet for many years.
In Quebec, Stéphane Dion’s flirtation with the Clarity Act has made him persona non grata with many voters. Door to door many Quebecers say their choice is between the Bloc and the Parti Vert. Too much perceived affinity with Dion will absolutely kill the protential switching of such voters to us. Some people think a minority Liberal government is a good thing. I suspect that any government headed by Dion will transform Gilles Duceppe into the Energizer Bunny and not much will really get done.
One of NDPers greatest electoral problems is that Conservatives always make them see “red”, while they give the Liberals (their real opposition) a relatively free ride. I see a danger that the GPC is falling into the same trap. There will be upheavals associated with implementing environmental reform. In 5 years time, whether the government is Liberal or Conservative, lobbying will be intense from economic sectors that may lose money from Green legislation. Both the old line parties pay attention to $$, so the argument that Liberals will be any better than the Conservatives (long-term) is unproven.
The GPC has to be the party with the facts and a clean reputation. Please, no more kid gloves for Mr. Dion and the Liberals.
Leo Williams
Reasonable Concerns
Both Kevin and Leo present good arguments, and very reasonable concerns. Of course, just as reasonable counterarguments could be presented as well. Ultimately, the proof will be in the pudding. We simply must wait and see how all of this plays out. And we may not have to wait very long.
In the meantime, all of us must fully support our courageous Leader, Elizabeth May.
Re: Deal conveys too much respect for Liberals
Hi Leo,
You raise some good points, but my analysis is not really based on the strengths and weaknesses of the Liberals. I'd make most of the same arguments regarding a deal with any of the other parties. Nor do I have a problem with Elizabeth's public support of Mr. Dion. It is her opinion and she is entitled to it. However, I do think that since the GPC is a separate party we should run our own candidates rather than endorsing Liberals. This sort of competitiveness is healthy in a democracy and I think it should be left up to the voters to decide who they want to support.
Regards,
Kevin
Re: Reasonable Concerns
Hi Brad,
Regarding the following:
> Ultimately, the proof will be in the pudding. We simply must wait and see how all of this plays out. And we may not have to wait very long.
I think you might mean that if Elizabeth wins, then that will prove my arguments wrong. If that is the case, then I have to disagree.
I think that winning in a riding where one or more other parties don't run candidates will do little to convince most voters that we are a viable force in Canadian politics. On the other hand, not winning in this same situation could convince some voters that we are going nowhere.
In my opinion, both of these situations are worse than the comparative situations if the deal was not made. For example, if we win without deals then it will really impress on voters that we are up-and-comers. If we don't win then it will strengthen the already-valid argument that changes to the electoral system are required.
In either case, the fallout will only be apparent a few years from now. But it seems to me that this deal is unnecessarily putting too many eggs in one basket.
> In the meantime, all of us must fully support our courageous Leader, Elizabeth May.
I do hope that Elizabeth is elected. However, it is possible to offer this support while disagreeing with specific tactics used to win the election in her riding. Tactical decisions need to reinforce a strategy that leads to our long-term success.
Regards,
Kevin
Judging Success
Whether or not Elizabeth wins Central Nova will only be one factor in determining if the agreement was a success, and not, it seems to me, the most important one. In fact, Elizabeth could fail to capture Central Nova and yet at the same time the agreement could be a success. I believe that the most important factor will be if Canadians see that both the Liberals and the Greens are very concerned about the prospects of another Harper government, and as a result, do not vote him back into office. Also, I hope Canadians feel the passion of Elizabeth and Stéphane, and hear their desperate plea concerning the future of our planet. If this message sinks in, then the agreement will have been a success. In short, if the green cause is advanced, then Elizabeth will have been successful, not otherwise.
I can say with certainty that Elizabeth did NOT come to this arrangement simply in the hopes of winning her riding. I do not believe that this had anything to do with it at all.
Elizabeth and Stéphane are passionate and caring humans fighting for the very survival of their planet in the best way they believe they can. Politics is absolutely secondary. It is Jack Layton, and of course Stephen Harper who want to keep playing politics while our planet is dying in the meantime.
To me this is not a question of political strategy or tactics, it is a question of waking up Canadians, and then the rest of the inhabitants of this planet, before it is too late. And insisting upon a spirit of cooperation rather than continuing with the traditional manner of pure political competition has got to be the way to do it.
Together we shall stand, divided we shall all of us, fall. And I am convinced that Elizabeth made the right decision.
The Bright Side
I think the deal was surprising but in a positive way. We all talk about wanting to be the 'different' party, the party that will establish new ground rules for the politcal game that has alienated so many voters. Well, this is what different looks like. It's about respecting some individuals who, because of primitive tribalism that disguises itself as partisanship, we would (or should) normally attack. It's about being human. I think voters will like this. When I answer questions about the deal the first thing I say is, "I think it's great".
This is a courageous step that will differentiate us from the other parites, including the Liberals. As for the balance of the deal, judging by the reaction from some of the local Liberals I've met, we've definitely got the best bargain here. We stood no chance of taking Dion's seat but we now have a fighting chance in Central Nova.
I still intend to campaign on the virtue of our ideas, on the strengths of our policies. When the minority Conservative government representatives inevitably start to criticise this deal I will be able to point out such criticism as another example of them using the old style of politics, a style that we have taken real and imaginative steps to eliminate from the Canadian politcal landscape. We are placing the future of our environment above the normal hockey fight that passes as politics in this country.
We are making history here and I believe voters will see that and come over to our party in huge numbers.
Joel Parkes
Peterborough Green Party Candidate
A Fascinating Perspective
Great breakdown. I was initially very optimistic about this deal, but am getting concerned about further implications. I think the point you raise about "what if she doesn't win?" or "winning with an asterisk" is especially valid.
Good questions about the deal
"Elizabeth and Stéphane are passionate and caring humans fighting for the very survival of their planet in the best way they believe they can. Politics is absolutely secondary. It is Jack Layton, and of course Stephen Harper who want to keep playing politics while our planet is dying in the meantime."
Since when did Stephane Dion put passion and human caring before politics? Since when has Jack Layton and/or the federal NDP not fought for the social, labour and international justice?
Stephane Dion does not, did not, and certainly will not support electoral and parliamentary reform.
Ms. May could have won in another riding or at least had the same fighting chance without the deal. Why would that not be courageous? How is it courageous to announce you are running in a riding and then try to get everyone to agree not to oppose you? The deal raises the valid questions stated above and others. Why would the leader of our Party state that the Liberals, already proven failures politically when it comes to social and international justice and the environment, will make the best government as opposed to the Green Party? She has essentially stated that she cannot win a fair election but must "rig" this one. Yes, I said "rig". If we had had a member elected to the House before the London Byelection every other party would have extended the same courtesy extended to all new leaders and not run a candidate in the byelection. But we don't have that yet. You can't bypass the electoral system or try to manipulate it and state that you believe in reform. Who says the leader of a rival Party or any party has an automatic right to enter the House of Commons? Since when is that democracy? Every other political party has proven her wrong. First past the post is a failed system but the Reform Party succeeded in electing an MP before their leader found his way into the House. The CCF did it. The NDP did it. The Bloq did it. The PQ. did it. Every other non traditional party of its time has accomplished it by continuing to fight and show the sitting powers to be inept.
Do I support Ms. May? Yes because I support the Green Party. Do I agree with everything she does? No. Do I hope Greens get elected? Absolutely! But how do we answer the question of why the leader of our party thinks Dion will make a better Prime Minister than her? If Mr. Dion is the best Prime Minister out there then he needs at least a minority government which means he needs at least 124 seats, which in turn means that 124 Greens don't deserve to be elected because we need that many liberals in the house to make Dion the Prime Minister. That is precisely what the voters will be thinking. If Dion is the best then the voters should vote Liberal which means he could form a majority government, not a minority. That is as bad as the Conservatives because the liberals have learned nothing and will do nothing. Is Ms. May going to be critical of the liberals? How? By saying Mr. Dion is the only good politician out there among the liberals? Are Green candidates now going to be prevented or contradicted when they are critical of Mr. Dion? Why can't anyone see that it is pointless that Mr. Dion may actually be a compassionate man. The liberal party is NOT. He must cater, (and already has) to his party's quest for power, not the issues. Who is Mr. Dion to say to the voters of Nova Scotia who they should vote for? Why would someone who has never voted Green in Nova Scotia all of a sudden going to vote Green? Because Mr. Dion has taken away their preferred choice? That shows nothing but contempt for their opinion.
Nominated Candidate for Trinity-Spadina, Toronto
www.trinityspadinagreens.ca
http://stephenlafrenie.blogspot.com
www.twawareness.org
www.mimeguy.com
This blog reflects my personal opinion. It is not official Green Party Policy. www.departmentofpeace.ca
http://stephenlafrenie.blogspot.com
A couple of minor corrections
A few comments on your post, Stephen.
You asked, "But how do we answer the question of why the leader of our party thinks Dion will make a better Prime Minister than her?"
Answer, she didn't. She said Dion was the second best choice, after a Green PM. Many press articles quote Dion's version of that statement.
You asked, "Are Green candidates now going to be prevented or contradicted when they are critical of Mr. Dion?"
Answer, absolutely not. That was clear in your briefing notes. This is not an endorsement of the Liberal party, it is a simple agreement to acknowledge the need for a strong Green voice in Ottawa and to assist that in becoming a reality.
You asked "Why would someone who has never voted Green in Nova Scotia all of a sudden going to vote Green?".
Answer, because they choose to. That's all. In London North Centre, over 20% of the voters swung to the Green Party. This was the first time such a flood of support occurred, and you should expect this to happen in every riding in Canada. That number would have been higher if we had had more time in the campaign, such as we have now.
In my opinion, Elizabeth could have won Central Nova without any agreement in place. However, there are still a lot of voters out there who do not share my opinion, and the brilliance of this agreement is that it announces clearly that the Green Party means business. It begins the critically important shift in perception among voters across Canada that Greens can and will win ridings. With that shift in thinking comes more votes, which reinforces the belief, which brings in more votes.
There are lots of historical precedence for this kind of pre-election arrangement. The government of MacKenzie King in 1927 was formed by an alliance of parties, nominally called Liberal, at a time when there were roughly 16 political parties vying for seats. It is a valid adaptation to the first past the post electoral system which recognizes common goals.
The arrangement we have seen here is nothing close to the scale of that, or subsequent, elections. It is two leaders agreeing that they both need to lead the charge to restore some hope for the future of our planet.
I will make the observation that having read hundreds upon hundreds of blog entries, articles and analysis, virtually all of the criticism comes from people outside of the affected ridings, and there has been significant support for the deal from inside the ridings.
Jim Johnston,
Lambton-Kent-Middlesex
Common goals..
"It is a valid adaptation to the first past the post electoral system which recognizes common goals."
We need to remind ourselves that the only common goal here is the election of Elizabeth May to the house of commons. This is a goal of the Liberal leader in this deal, to help Elizabeth May get elected.
I don't think there is anything to be said about the deal beyond that. Whatever Mr. Dion's personal views on the environment or electoral reform, he is but the current leader of the party and not the voice of the party. People forget that even as Ministers they are just one member of cabinet, and I don't think that the poor record of the Liberals on the environment can be attributed to any individual persons. It is in my opinion unlikely that Mr. Dion will get strong support from fellow Liberal MPs or party membership on environmental policy or electoral reform. They will back him in his support of Elizabeth May as an individual, especially in a riding that they had no realistic hope of winning themselves, but I can't agree with anyone reading anything more into the deal beyond that.
---
Russell McOrmond (Constituent, Ottawa South)
Check out my BLOG on Digital Copyright Canada.
A divisive decision
Hi Brad and all,
Regarding this:
> To me this is not a question of political strategy or tactics, it is a question of waking up Canadians, and then the rest of the inhabitants of this planet, before it is too late. And insisting upon a spirit of cooperation rather than continuing with the traditional manner of pure political competition has got to be the way to do it. Together we shall stand, divided we shall all of us, fall. And I am convinced that Elizabeth made the right decision.
I understand that you believe that the deal was done for the right reasons, but all decisions have consequences and these consequences need to be considered if we want to most effectively try to ensure that the problems on the planet are fixed. It is part and parcel of the Green philosophy that we should consider the impact of our polticial decision-making for seven generations. This decision should not be excluded from such analysis.
Another point to consider is that you can't force people to cooperate. You can lead by example, however, and I know that you believe that this deal is a positive example for politicians and Canadians. But this deal has turned out to be very divisive, both within the party and without. I don't think the deal has brought people closer together and as such I think Elizabeth and Mr. Dion could have found another way to signal their willingness to cooperate.
Regards,
Kevin
Backlash
Kevin, there is no question but that you are correct at this time. There is certainly some divisiveness, and this had to be anticipated. But the full ramifications of May's actions have yet to be played out. It is too soon to render judgment. The shock waves will have an effect upon the next federal election, whenever it takes place, and possibly even beyond. This is just the beginning, let us hope it is not the end.
Jack Layton May Be Feeling The Isolation
Am I reading too much into things but didn't Jack signal to Elizabeth that he is open to talking.
"A spokesman for Mr. Layton said yesterday that there were no requests for a telephone call, as far as he knew. Karl Belanger added that there have been efforts to get the two leaders together for the past two weeks or so for a face-to-face meeting, but that their schedules hadn't meshed."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.2...
I think Elizabeth May is brilliant!
Change
Re the May/Dion deal: People want change and this is what change looks like.
Joel Parkes
Peterborough Green Party Candidate
The deal's impact on candidates
I have been hearing reports that Green candidates and EDAs are coming under pressure to not run candidates as a result of the Central Nova deal. Many candidates have also been placed in the awkward situation of defending a situation that they do not necessarily personally support.
This is another perhaps unexpected cost of the deal in that spending our time planning and discussing deals distracts from the important work that we need to do to get our message out to voters. In most cases we only have about 1/10th the resources of the other parties, so even cursory discussions about activities peripheral to party-building have a far greater negative impact on the GPC than they do on other parties. Unfortunately, I find I'm taking part in these peripheral activities myself but I'm doing so in the hope that addressing the issue head-on now will help to prevent repeats of this issue in the future.
Our greatest political strength lies in our ability to formulate and promote policies that creatively address problems being faced by Canada and the world. In many cases, the other parties are constrained from making similar proposals due to historical alliances or restrictive ideologies or vested interests.
To shift our focus from this strength to old-school politicking is playing to the strengths of other parties. These are strengths that have been honed by decades of experience. Remember, supporters of other parties think that their party has better solutions than the Green Party. As such, it is entirely appropriate and natural for them to use whatever advantage they can find to ensure that their policies get implemented. It is entirely likely that the GPC will get the worst of any additional deals.
For those candidates and EDAs who are considering or are being pressured to make deals - please don't.
Regards,
Kevin
Candidate Nominees
Kevin states: Many candidates have also been placed in the awkward situation of defending a situation that they do not necessarily personally support.
This is an excellent point.
I had the opportunity to speak, along with two other very fine candidate nominees, last evening. We were honoured to have David Chernushenko with us as well. He is a magnificent speaker.
There were essentially two points that I wanted to make. First, that I personally support Elizabeth's bold decision, and that irrespective of our individual views on the matter, we MUST stand together and support our Leader. No one can predict the future, what is done is done. We must work to make it a success.
Secondly, how I would approach the public debates if I had the honour of being chosen to represent Ottawa South. The seat is currently held by the Liberal environment critic, David McGuinty. I would go to him and suggest that we work in a spirit of cooperation. This would mean that we would disagree over the differences between Liberal and Green policy as gentlemen who respect one another, who share a common concern for the planet. We would not act as adversarial foes. No. We would, the both of us, save this for the New Democrat and the Conservative.
I believe that all Green candidates should consider this approach.
There is no pressure on other candidates not to run
Kevin, you said "I have been hearing reports that Green candidates and EDAs are coming under pressure to not run candidates as a result of the Central Nova deal."
The deal affects only two ridings, May's and Dion's. Everybody else is supposed to campaign and campaign hard in their ridings. If you have observed "pressure" to not run, then please advise the election committee or council, and they will put a stop to it. Also, I would suggest that if there is an internal issue to deal with, this blog is not the right place to address it. My email is jjohnston@greenparty.ca if you wish to discuss further.
Brad, in reference to what you should do with the other candidates, I would suggest that you treat them all the same. Treat them with respect, but don't put up with any distortions from anyone. Present your case, the Green case, and the Green case only. Let the voter's decide the rest. Your job is not to cozy up to Liberals .. your job is to get more votes than they do. Period.
Jim Johnston,
Lambton-Kent-Middlesex
Cozy
Thank you Jim. There is a spirit in the agreement between Elizabeth and Stéphane. And I think it says this. Or at least I think it should.
If you are a Green, you want anyone who will NOT vote Green, to vote Liberal. And if you are a Liberal, you want anyone who will NOT vote Liberal, to vote Green.
If Jack Layton would join Elizabeth and Stéphane, then the equation would change. And everyone would be arguing, pleading, if you cannot vote for me, please, at least, do NOT vote for the Conservative.
I find it sad that the NDP, to this point at least, has made such an error. For it in effect, supports Stephen Harper.
I ran against John Akpata of the Marijuana Party in one election. He was a great public spokesperson and had well though out opinions on all issues. In fact, I understand that John Ford is trying to recruit him into the Greens. Good luck, John! In his closing statement at one of the public debates, after a tremendously impassioned plea, Mr. Akpata threw his arms up in the air and implored, "...look, I agree with Mr. Thomson, vote for any of the rest of us, but PLEASE do NOT vote Conservative..."
I am not sure whether or not he was smoking anything. :)
Pressure on candidates
Hi Jim,
> If you have observed "pressure" to not run, then please advise the election committee or council, and they will put a stop to it. Also, I would suggest that if there is an internal issue to deal with, this blog is not the right place to address it.
Sorry, I should have been more clear when I posted this. The pressure is coming from external sources. My understanding is that other parties think we might be ready to deal in ridings other than Central Nova, and they are asking about it. In another case, interest groups (mistakenly) believe that Green voters are causing their preferred candidate to not win. In these cases the external parties would like to see Greens withdraw or not run.
There was some of this in previous elections but I think there will be more this time around. Like it or not, the message we have sent is that we think strategic voting will work in at least one riding. As a result, I think it will be more difficult for some candidates to argue that it is not a factor and/or would not work in their riding. We are asking them to walk a pretty fine line when it comes to explaining things.
Thanks to both you and Brad for your comments on this aspect of the deal.
Regards,
Kevin
Thanks for the clarification, Kevin
Hey Kevin.
Thanks for that clarification. I can see that there is a confused perception outside of the Green Party, and I believe it is our job to be consistent in terms of how we deal with that.
The metaphor that comes to mind is that of the penalty kick in soccer, when the defense stands in a line, arms linked, (usually protecting their vulnerable spots!), presenting a united front against the kicker.
I truly believe that we are on the verge of a massive electoral breakthrough, and we may very easily hold the balance of power in the next legislature. I think we need to let people know about that belief and that possibility.
Jim Johnston,
Lambton-Kent-Middlesex
Comments from Dan Baril
Mr. Baril was a paid GPC strategist who advised Elizabeth not to do the deal. His comments about it are posted in his April 16 and April 18 blog entries here: http://www.danbaril.com/. The campaign team, candidates and members should read to get a feel for what is going to happen next.
His comments about it are
His comments about it are posted in his April 16 and April 18 blog entries here
Who is Baril working for again????? Having a public tantrum when your advice isn't followed isn't very professional. Perhaps we need to be more careful in picking our advisors.
Mike
Loans that change lives - http://kiva.org
What about client confidentiality?
When I have done consulting work for clients, there is an understanding (and often a signed agreement) concerning the confidentiality of the information exchanged. I echo Mike's comments that this issue is not being treated in a very professional manner by our former strategist.
On the other hand, that also suggests that we are better off now, doesn't it?
Jim Johnston,
Lambton-Kent-Middlesex
Substantive arguments need to be addressed
Hi Michael and Jim,
I posted the link to Mr. Baril's blog since I thought he consisely summarized some of the issues I think the party will face in the lead-up to the next election. I have never personally met, conversed or emailed with him, and you raise some good points about the motives behind his postings.
However ... I think it is worthwhile to be aware of the points he is raising sooner rather the later, since the other parties are going to bring them to the attention of the public soon enough.
For example, the issue about how the deal will impact Elizabeth's inclusion in the Leaders' debate is already being raised by Mr. Layton (e.g. he doesn't think she should be in because of it). As a member of the federal campaign team in the last two elections I know all too well that the media consortium who decides who gets into the debates are going to welcome such arguments with open ears.
These and similar issues are issues that our candidates are going to have to address in the coming weeks and months. If you have suggestions as to why and how Mr. Baril's analysis is inaccurate or how potential problems can be mitigated then please send them along. Even if I disagree it will probably serve candidates well to be aware of a range of ideas about how to talk about this deal.
Regards,
Kevin
Layton never wanted us in
You state:
"Elizabeth's inclusion in the Leaders' debate is already being raised by Mr. Layton (e.g. he doesn't think she should be in because of it)."
This is a mis-statement. Layton has always been dead set against Elizabeth being in the debates (behind the scenes, of course). Anything we do, he'll put it forth as pretext for us not to be in. This move has not changed his mind, he's just trying to use it as ammunition to spin what he already wants. Luckily, his position is weak: the deal does not show that Elizabeth is too weak to be in, but rather that the respect the Liberals have for her indicate she should be in. That is how the consortium will take it, I expect. They aren't looking for an excuse to keep her out, but an excuse to overturn their earlier "you must have a seat to play" stance.
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins, Barrie ON - although I'm on Cabinet (Nat'l Rev. and Ecol. Fiscal Reform), views here are my own and may not reflect official GPC positions. Please visit www.ErichtheGreen.ca
Baril's View Is Not Written In Stone
I've just read Mr. Baril's blog about the May/Dion deal and I simply don't agree with his views. He makes the assumption that people really are dumb in Canada and that they will follow the media and the old-line political parties' negative spin of this one-off 'leader's courtesy' exercise.
Harper is ... well, he's just Harper. Disingenuous, partisan to the core and willing to manipulate any perceived irregularity in Canada's politcal firmament as further reason to support the minority Conservative government. Of course Layton will freak out about this. He is seeing his party getting marginalised by the day and he has chosen to go for the 'shocked', partisan approach but can anyone, after seeing this man's political career over the years, really be surprised by this?
This is what change looks like. Canadians want politcal change. I saw an Angus-Reid poll a few weeks back that said 57% of Canadians have switched party allegiance in the last three months. That is evidence of a very volatile electorate and, in this volatile environment, we, the Green Party Of Canada, are setting the agenda. The old-line parties are reacting to us and that is what we want. We need to keep moving forward and setting the agenda with bold, pro-active moves like the May/Dion deal. We need to continue to define what the 'new politics' will be.
I think this whole thing is extremely exciting. It's politcal evolution and we are in the thick of it. We should be proud, not trepidatious. Bragging about this, not embarrassed by it. Honestly, I wish they'd drop the writ right now. I think we are about to make political history.
Joel Parkes
Peterborough Green Party Candidate
Elizabeth May Debate
Given the agreement Elizabeth came to with Stéphane, it is difficult to believe that she will not be allowed into the debates. Elizabeth has become a national figure, a REAL player, and everyone is talking about the Greens now. How might Elizabeth and Stéphane handle one another in the debates? This will be a very interesting question to have answered. Including our leader in the debates will certainly boost the ratings, so guess what? That's backroom, television executive democracy for you Jack!
My real concern is whether or not Layton will show up!
Re: Elizabeth and the debate
Hi Erich (and Brad),
I think you are right that Jack Layton never wanted Elizabeth in the debate, and is just using the deal as a pretext. Thanks for the clarification. Also, I hope that you are right about how the consortium views the deal; time will tell.
Regards,
Kevin
A few follow-up thoughts on the deal
I posted the following comments to my blog and I thought some people reading this thread might be interested. Here is the link to the original:
http://kevinsgreenpartyblog.blogharbor.com/blog/_a...
---
Now that the initial hubbub has died down a little I wanted to post a few follow-up thoughts about the deal and my original blog. Some of you may have read an article about the deal titled "'Why, Elizabeth, why?" A bad week to be a lefty" by Patricia Robertson in last weekend's Globe and Mail. (It's behind the G&M firewall so I can't provide a link.) I'm quoted in the article and I'll get to that in a moment, but first a short synopsis.
One of the key points made by Ms. Robertson is that the Greens would have been better off if we had forged an alliance with the NDP rather than the Liberals. Since we didn't, she believes that Elizabeth's chances of becoming Prime Minister some day, or even winning her seat in this election is now "an impossible dream." Ms. Robertson then follows up with the following:
"In fact, we'll have to see if [Elizabeth] even continues to carry the Green banner after the next election."
"Party member Kevin Colton, in his online blog this week, accused Ms. May of poor leadership. He said he opposes the Dion deal and has misgivings about his party's electoral prospects. 'Despite our best efforts," he said, "there is a very real chance that in the upcoming election that GPC will again elect no candidates under first-past-the-post."
There are a few points to make about this quote and the context in which it was presented. In no particular order:
First, I disagree with the conclusion that it would have been better to forge an alliance with the NDP. I've written against this proposal in the past. The GPC is not by nature a left-wing party, and I think this assumption is part of the reason why some of the conclusions drawn by Ms. Robertson are over-stated.
Second, in no way do I doubt that Elizabeth will continue to carry the Green banner after the next election, regardless of how it turns out, if she so chooses. Jim Harris was the right leader at a time when the party needed his vision and professional skills, and Elizabeth is the right leader for the party right now when it can capitalize on her charisma, dynamism and long-standing commitment to addressing environmental concerns.
Third, I did not accuse Elizabeth of poor leadership. I did say she made a mistake and I hope that both she and readers will see this distinction. Making no mistakes is an impossible standard and no-one should be held to that standard.
Fourth, I do believe the mistake was fairly serious. However, it is not nearly serious enough that it might prevent a Green Prime Minister from ever being elected. When I wrote my essay on how the GPC could win Parliament by 2020 I expected there would be growing pains like this, and that would lead to slower growth than some in the party might like to see. But in the bigger picture of long-term goals and objectives the strength of our values and policies will help to minimize the impact of any given decision like this deal.
Fifth, my comments about the possibility of not electing candidates are presented out of context. Elsewhere in my article I state that I believe it is almost certain that we will elect someone by the end of the decade. I also mention that the deal would marginally increase the chances of Elizabeth's election in Central Nova, not decrease them. The possibility of not electing candidates was intended to illustrate the best strategy to compensate for the vagaries of first-past-the-post over the next four or five years. I do not believe the deal will harm our chances of electing someone in this or a future election under first-past-the-post. In fact, I continue to believe it is possible to for the GPC to win Parliament by 2020 under any electoral system.
Having said all that, I'm sure my concerns with this single quote would pale next to Elizabeth's frustration about how the deal as a whole was interpreted vs how it was intended. But, nevertheless, I'll try to draw a few preliminary conclusions from this discussion.
First, many supporters of the deal have noted that it is a good example of what the Green Party means when it says it does politics differently. I agree that this was a good intention. I also think that the response to my blog provides another example of how we do politics differently. On the one hand, we have the Conservatives (and the other parties, perhaps to a lesser extent) exercising message control amongst their caucus to the fullest of their abilities. On the other hand, as a party member I'm able to openly criticize a party decision on the party's own public website.
As far as I can determine none of the other major parties are doing anything close to this and I think there is going to be a big payoff to this sort of open discussion in a few years. We are setting up a framework to better engage and activate our members and that in turn will allow us to identify solutions for issues and corrections to problems much faster than the other parties. Not to mention that if and when the other parties decide to give this sort of open discussion a try they will be years behind the GPC when it comes to figuring out how to make it work.
I can attest that there is a huge buy-in to this new way of doing politics. Not a single member who responded to my post on the GPC blog commented that I shouldn't have made the post.
My second conclusion, an extension of the first, is that people will take what they want from your comments. Ms. Robertson saw what she considered a good quote and she ran with it. One response to this might be to try to avoid saying things that are critical. But much of today's media coverage is driven by conflict. If a quote that illustrates conflict isn't readily available then I think many in the media will keep looking for another disgruntled member or another divisive topic.
I think that when political observers see disagreements they often tend to view them through the traditional media prism of unhealthy conflict. Many voters are tired of this perspective, but at the same time working to make things better sometimes means that it is healthy to air concerns and respectfully disagree. Elizabeth is forthright about issues and it is clear that voters respond positively and find her refreshing. I think the key is to try to strike the right balance. I've read that a in a healthy relationship there should be eight positive comments for every disagreement. That ratio might be a little pollyanna-ish when talking politics, but I've tried to keep the spirit of that suggestion in mind when I offer opinions on my blog or by email.
My third conclusion is our detractors will always try to make internal disagreements like this into more than they actually are. This happened in the last election as well. But over time, if we don't respond in a knee-jerk kind of way, I think most voters will see through the rhetoric and will appreciate the way we are trying to do politics differently. Real change takes more than sound bites and I think that once voters get past the surface messaging in the media and learn in some detail about our ideas they will buy in for the long term. I think the steady rise in our core support over the past few years is a good proof of this.
Elizabeth, keep up the great work. Despite my misgivings I continue to hope that your plan works out.
Ms. May's deal
I am one of those not pleased by the deal Ms. May and Mr. Dion made. In the legal system, “… it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance, that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”
I believe the same is true in the political system, and it is something that has been lacking for so long that the majority of people believe our political system and politicians are hopelessly corrupt - and that participation is futile. I was initially attracted to the GPC because I believed it was the only party "clean" enough to actually clean up the system - and I still believe that to be true, though sadly I am less confident of that now.
This deal appears to many (all of those with whom I have spoken, including many GPC supporters) to be a typical political backroom deal. While that may not be true, neither leader has sufficient moral capital with voters to be able to say "trust me," and that is what they have asked us to do. Moreover, Ms. May DID support the idea of Mr. Dion as PM in their joint statement:
"Statement by the Hon. Stéphane Dion, Leader, Liberal Party of Canada and Elizabeth May, Leader, Green Party of Canada
We recognize that a government in which Stéphane Dion served as Prime Minister could work well with a Green Caucus of MPs, led by Elizabeth May, committed to action on climate."
As a candidate, I always had to answer the question why anyone should vote Green, or for me in particular. Now I must answer this given the general perception that my party's leader has endorsed the Liberal party, because, make no mistake, it is very difficult to separate an endorsement of the leader from that of the party he - or she - leads.
I do see some positives coming from this:
* The Liberal leader has publicly accepted the Green leader as an equal - an important first.
* The Liberal leader has largely admitted that his own party will not do what needs to be done about the climate crisis without the backbone of the Green Party.
Brian Gordon
Nominated Candidate for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca