Whither the Green Party?

A few facts and observations first.

The GPC has for all of 2009 been on a severe austerity program, and will remain on it into the election- even if that is a year away. They got rid of all of their organizers that weren't working in May's SGI campaign [who therefore already werent doing any broad basic party organizing]. And there have been other cuts.

It looks like the austerity program has at least been able to stem the dangerous downward financial spiral- unless someone is seriously cooking the books, which is pretty unlikely. But spending in the next election will probably be less than half what it was in the 2008 campaign. And coming up to the campaign there are ever fewer ridings even minimaly active, or registered with elections Canada. The vast majority of them will have considerably less money to spend in the election. And without field organizers there will be less of the kind of low keyed local activity [at least sprinkling around signs] that on the aggregat boosts a small party's national vote share.

The austerity program of course does not extend to May's SGI campaign. Quite the contrary. At least until the Spring they wer spending $20,000 to $30,000 per month, plus GPC paid saleries and the expenses of moving May to BC and setting her up there. Apparently, in Spring the transfers from the GPC were stopped. But they had a considerable cash stash and I will bet anything that they will soon be back to getting the same monthly I.V. feed, whether through transfers or the SGI EDA nationaly fundraising from the GPC donor list.

There is close to unanimous consent that May's riding is THE focus, but a lot of grumblimg even among May supporters that it is the ONLY thing going on in the party.

As well as there being no building in the ridings except the handful that were always autonomously inititaed [and fewer even of those], May has dissappeared off the national radar. The media ignores her. Most of the few exceptions to that are when the media reports turmoil or flakiness. May got a few more puff pieces around the Convention, which is pretty thin.

While the GPC has more or less held up in the polls- the polls are notoriously fickle predictors of how much the GPC vote will drop from there on voting day. It dropped substantially in 2008 when May had a high profile in the debates and went into the campaign riding over a year of strong and uncritical if not fawning media coverage.

Campaigns are where you get delayed reactions to the fundamentals that existed going into the campaign. If the GPC dropped substantially in 2008 with very favourable fundamentals, what is going to happen when they go in to the next election with very weak fundamentals, considerably less of a campaign on all levels, and May no longer the fresh new thing that tips a lot of undecideds?

And no debate for her next election.

If May somehow cannot pull off a victory in SGI with the Greens becoming an elect-Elizabeth-May party, then any residual authority she has is gone. Rivals will be emboldened, party faithful will get disheartened, and the party goes into a tailspin.

SGI's numbers are not favourable to the Greens. Okay, they did well in 2004, but the numbers have declined considerably since then. The Liberals will be pushing hard to boot Lunn, and dealing a potential death-blow to a pesky rival is a bonus. The NDP could reclaim third or second place if they actually run a proper campaign next time, and might well send EMay home with a fourth-place finish. But I can see it being a close race, maybe even as close as Saskatoon-Humboldt a couple of elections ago.

If the Greens are betting that EMay's name and throwing every penny they can at the riding is going to work, I think they may well be in for a nasty shock on 41 E-Day.

I dont think the dissidents mean more than literally when they say pursue all the 308 ridings. They say and mean what you do: there should be a LOT more ridings pursued.

[And this time there will be no money sprinkled around as in 2008, as well as no advance field work since there are no organizers.]

Filling in 308 paper candidates SHOULD not be that hard. But from my observation, it takes a tremendous amount more work than one would think. It seems to be VERY time consuming. [And people keep changing their minds, or not giving real answers about whether they will do it, backing out close to filing deadlines, etc.]

I think there is a good chance they will far short on that.

And of course she says she WILL win. But the GPC has a better chance of significantly exceeding expectations in the national vote, than are May's chances of winning her seat.

Albeit the strongest odds are falling short on BOTH those counts.

Greg Morrow just wrote a longish blogpost on May and SGI, along with her weekend comments saying that membership numbers are not an indicator of anything.  He says that for all the money they've shovelled into SGI, they've identified 3500 marks, i.e., 3250 less than they got votes in 2008.  To me you might not expect to have identified your E-day quotient this early, but you'd probably know who most of your core vote was.  And 6750 would have to be called the core, as that's who they kept last time, even with prominent Greens calling on people to vote for Liberal Briony Penn.  Certainly, it's a good 20,000 or so away from having the marks to win.

3,500 check marks would mean they have spent well past $70 each on getting them.

Campaigns I've been in have ranged from under $4 to an outlier at $7 per check mark.

At that rate, they'll need the entire annual GPC budget left after paying the salaries of May and those close to her to have a good crack at winning.

I don't think May can win in Saanich-Gulf Islands.  Not if both the NDP and Liberals run candidates.  In order for her to win, all the non-Conservative votes would have to concentrate almost entirely behind her.  Even with the NDP candidate basically out of the race in 2008, and most NDP voters supporting Briony Penn and the Liberals, it still wasn't enough to beat Lunn.

Now part of that may be because the Liberal vote collapsed in B.C. to dismal levels, but it still shows how difficult it can be.  The Green Party is also not the Liberals or the NDP.  It is not yet considered a mainstream party by many voters and many people who would vote Liberal or NDP would not necessarily vote Green.

May probably should have run in Guelph or Bruce-Grey-Owen-Sound where the Green Party received much higher numbers than it has in SGI.

I think the Green's will take Grey/Bruce/Owen Sound.

I think Miller is going to be defeated, it is just a personal feeling.

I am placing my bet on Hogbin, I am sure she will do better the Love. Love seems like a nice person however I do not think she is part of the riding like Hogbin is.

We will see in time, I might be wrong.

So is there a nomination battle going on between the Green candidates then?

Shouldn't the Greens have kept Dick Hibma as their candidate?

Nice. slam good NDP candidates for running again and then slam a Green for not running again.  Cute as well as nice.

Life, the univ..... I never heard of Love until BA told me about her just a few months ago.

I rather see Hogbin win because she for the most part as lived and worked in Owen Sound compared to Love.

It will be interesting to watch this riding because of the large number is women trying to defeat Miller.

Rather see her win is different than what I was responding too.  Given the two choices I might lean that way too.  But lets be honest anyone would be an improvement over Mr. Ingnoramous.  Voters in that riding will have two great women to choose from.  I just hope the vote doesn't spilt too much. 

Anyway on to May.   As I have mentioned before I was a very early Green and helped to get riding assocications started in a number of riding -including the old riding of Bruce Grey in the 80-90s when Jim Garrity and Don Cianci ran.   I left over the rightward drift under Harris.  I was disappointed when the party went to May as it was clearly a style over substance choice.  I see nothing in what has happened to see that that perspective should change.

It's not the same situation.  Hibma has only run once so far from what I can tell, not multiple times.  And he hasn't been in office and then been defeated and tried to return to it.  And I wasn't "slamming" a Green for doing anything.  I was asking whether it wouldn't be beneficial to have their candidate from last time run again.

Heh, a story on Elizabeth May that isnt completely obscure.

The Greens' funky leader sees a Harper election plot

An example of the 180 shift since 2007 and 2008 how the media view May.

And an example of her 'limited wisdom'. Her ideas arent kooky; but talk about them in this contaxt, and shes guaranteed to get this result.

How many opprtunities does she get anymore to talk to the first rank of the Hill journalists? And she uses it like this.

Shows how much she puts into being the national leader.

For that matter, this thread is a reflection of that. All the apples being in the SGI race, it gets a fair bit of babble discussion. While this thread about the GPC as a national party, hasnt been posted in for weeks. And also ends up being a lot about the SGI race.

I think May was quite astute in analyzing one aspect of Harper's strategy. That is suppressing the overall vote numbers by making people cynical about politics. And then relying on his base to turn out because of the bones he has been throwing to them.

May is naive, however, in ignoring another major part of Harper's strategy. That is counting on the Greens to split the vote and elect an extra dozen or so Conservatives like what happened in the last two elections.

Don't think she is naive at all, think she wants the vote split, as I have maintaned all along.

My opinion is that the next election will see zero GPC MP's elected and Elizabeth May ousted as party leader. I'm sorry, but the GPC is too fringe in Canada and has not made serious inroads. The support is too spread out and our first-past-the-post system does them no favors. Some will disagree and tell me they are trending higher in the polls. My counter to that is that they always have polled higher before elections. When it's crunch time, their supporters go to the bigger national parties. Sorry Greens. You are doomed in Canada until we get PR.

I think you're getting a little carried away with that theory.  It seems your dislike of the Liberals is clouding your objectivity.

It's unlikely that the Green Party prevented the NDP from winning many seats, although it did take away some votes from them, as it did from the Liberals.

Personally I would agree that the conspiracy theories serve well to support any suggestion you might have that the possibility the GPC might do well rots Dippers socks. Which is a way of saying we deserve it.

Since conspiracy theories are built heavily on motives as evidence... one plausible motive is as good as another. And most motives offered look at least a little bit plausible.

But if I have to come eat some of that crow for what I did say looked like was happening and likely to happen [as opposed to things merely attributed to me].... I'll have a lot of Greens joining me for the feast.

I would not assume the Greens cannot win a seat-- it is a steep challenge but other than wishful thinking by those who oppose them I can't see why it absolutely could not happen.

Winning one riding is hardly a huge achievement for a party hovering around 10% in the polls with real deliverable support of at least 5%.

A good local campaign with a lucky dynamic where no other party is far in the lead and a squeeker could happen. As well the Greens can be a party that can sit on protest vote from almost any other party. What limited money the party has is concentrated in to a small number of ridings as well-- if they get the choice of which riding right then that can be a factor.

With these numbers, I'd guess the Greens have about a one in five chance of electing someone somewhere in any election -- if you consider this over 5 elections if the party manages the same sort of numbers, chances are pretty good that something flukey can happen. Then the party assumes that the added publicity and profile from a sitting member will vault them in to higher numbers, something that may or may not happen.

All this said, I think there is a reasonable chance that the person elected won't be Elizabeth May. I am not sure how she would handle that kind of result. One reason for this is that other parties will also try to defeat her.

Once the Greens elect a candidate, I suspect they may get a bit more attention-- then they better have a platform that is more robust than it is and internal policies that stand up to scrutiny. It is hard to say if they can manage that and if they don't then that single seat victory would be a flash in the pan. If they do it is hard to say what happens next. The attention the Greens get in part is because I suspect some are concerned about this.

As for those concerned in the NDP, a more successful Green party is not really such a bad thing-- an ally for PR, but more to the point another voice on the national stage criticizing the Cons. No doubt as well, a further plintering of the vote such that majorities are less likely. The government will not always be a Con Minority, at some point opposition parties will take the initiative and govern. If there is a Green in there is that a bad thing? Those so concerned in the NDP to say can never happen as if theya re so worried that they feel the need to say it over and over again till they hope it comes true, should relax. The NDP is not at risk and the Greens may appeal to those who want a new thing but the NDP has a core vote and a history the Greens do not have and the constituency is quite different. As long as the NDP has good leadership and a reasonable platform it is unlikely to go much below where it is.

Ryan-- please note-- I did not say otherwise.

5% can deliver seats certainly (maybe as I said 1/5 chance)

15% can fail to deliver seats (I'd say lower than 1 in 5 perhaps 1 in 10 chance-- in other words no guarantee but 15% is perhaps 90% chance of winning at least 1 seat)

Really depends on a number of factors and we don't know what the upper limit is for the number of votes needed to guarantee a seat. If the vote is spread evenly perhaps 20% can fail to get seats.

I think we are back to making a case for PR as it is the distribution of votes not the number of them that wins seats when considered federally.

Remember the 1993 result-- Reform party 52 seats with 18.5% of the vote; BQ 54 seats with 13.5% of the vote; PCs 2 seats with 16% of the vote; NDP 9 seats with under 7% of the vote...

Another way of looking at this is this: For a time Quebec used to be famous for massive federal majorities and many people used to say that Quebec all voted the same way. In fact they did not. What did happen is the same breakdown was replicated in the vast majority of ridings where as other provinces had more regional voting patterns.

KenS and Sean In Ottawa

So we all agree that luck will need to be on the GPC side. I'd share my luck with them if I could, but I'm in China.

As long as the left vote isn't split, May should win.

The last time I checked, the Green Party in Canada wasn't all that left of center. Why does this idea still persist? Is it because they are for the environment? Where would the Greens be put on a spectrum of Canadian Political Parties? Between the Libs and Cons I assume.

GV, are you suggesting that the Greens are Libertarians in environmentalists clothing. Does not the Green platform seem antithetical to Libertarian ideology. Though, I think most Canadian political parties have little space for Libertarians.

I think the closest party to the Greens is the BQ.

You can't place either on a left right grid because neither is defined by left -right politics.

In the case of the BQ they are nationalist/separatist. Their core vote has for the most part been left of centre, the leader is, and Quebec itself is somewhat left of on many issues but the party is not by definition this at all. A new leader, a new direction and a new constituency and the party could end up somewhere else sounding like something else entirely.

The Greens are an environmental party. They also do not fit on the left-right grid by definition. The current leader we could try to place but even then there is a lot of debate as to where. The party is actually more volatile in this regard than the BQ since they are thinly spread out-- if a lot of right wingers came in and took over the leadership you would have a Libertarian sounding party, or a centrist on, or a left leaning one. I have argued that the Greens compete with the NDP on the left and therefore may often find it more comfortable trying to sound different reaching for distinctions from the NDP and as well may also be able to attract those interested in the environment who dislike the location of the NDP on the left-right continuum.

Every time it comes up and people try top locate either one of these parties (Green or BQ) on a left-right axis I come back and say they really should not try to do so even if the current leadership could be placed that way. The Greens in particular always have left-right splits as well as a large number of people who either do not understand or reject the notion of such a split.

By definition, a left-right continuum is unidimensional.  Some of us see the world in more than one dimension.

I look at policy in 4 dimensions. I call them State, Markets, Utilitarianism, and Environmentalism. Most of the time they conflict, which is why we have politics.

Libertarianism is a lot more popular than most people would like to think, especially in business and political circles.

They were not "left" when they centered their platform on pricing fossil fuels out of use through market manipulation. 

If the Green Party now eschews this, they're moving...somewhere. 

"Third way" isn't a bad way to describe the Greens.  Unfortunately, it describes the NDP pretty aptly as well.

Ideologies that privilege selfishness and arrogance often DO have staying power, especially among people who see themselvs(as business types do)as the natural rulers of the Earth.

The Green Party's policies seem fairly progressive. Maybe that's why most Green voters say their second choice is the NDP and, to a lesser extent, the Liberals.

Green Party Policies

George-- note the word "seem"

Socialism is not the answer to everything. Market based solutions are key at the moment. Green jobs are going up, more regulations will only discourage and plus there is no need for them right now.

George-- I noted the word fairly and put together it was fair comment-- the Greens do seem fairly progressive at times.

That does not mean they are progressive or that they are very progressive.

They seem that way-- and indeed some of their canddiates actually are.

But thanks for helping make my point ;-)

Finally, Elizabeth May and the Green Party break through to get some headlines.

Elizabeth May's office destroyed after truck crashes through wall

These September posts were the most recent mention I could find in Babble for wht the Greens or May are doing.

There was also a thread I could not find for when somebody in the US named Elizabeth May one of the most notable [female?] politicians. Ironic.

I read in another thread recently that banker/economist/propagandist Don Drummond was a key speaker at the Greens' convention. I can't verify that, but if true, I can't imagine a more blatant demonstration of libertarians at work within, and the hand of Harris still firmly in control. Investment in green projects would be a major step forward in the transition from growth to command economy, but they are still depending simply on market solutions, which is madness.

In light of yestrday's surprise visit, maybe they can file the expenses under 'Travel and Hospitality' ?

I have the handle I do because I like many of his insights into political power.  Particularly his analysis of both the libertarian right and the Marxist left.  The following quote is from Baldwin's book on his pamphlets.

I didn't know of a second office in Saanich. I thought there was another one on one of the islands... presumably Saltspring.

Either there are 3 offices, or as is often the case, the reporter got the story garbled.

Did you ever see painting a whole building that includes other tennants?

Not likely. But if you are running a campaign for a couple years, things like painting the building are different.

And they do have at least one other campaign office, we're not only talking about different buildings for the same HQ. That might be the reason for another office in Saanich. But more likely the reporter just got garbled where the other campaign office is.

The $30K a month comes from last year's EDA returns for the Green Party in SGI, and was written about in more detail at the democraticSpace blog. The other details come from various Green Party blogs and the comments thereon.

The posts that OO is talking about where Greg Morrow discusses the SGI campaign finances are linked in posts 10&15 of this thread.

There was also a series of 4 articles on the SGI campaign from October in Green Party Strategy, which I linked to and commented on here, but I dont know what thread that was. The articles covered the finances as well. Like everything else in the GPC, that site has gone dormant, so all 4 of the October articles are still linked on the home page. 

I have experience in party finances- which is a completely different animal than finances for a campaign or riding association. And a hobby of picking over the data of all the parties. Going back over 2 years now, I noticed some VERY strange stuff in the GPC reporting. Until the last several months there was a very active Green blogosphere, and I talked about what I had seen there. Deconstructing with others the shell games the brain trust had played to hide or obscure how much money was spent in Central Nova and then SGI.

A lot of the discussion took place on Report on Greens. But that was more of an ongoing 'project,' so it is pretty scattered around.

Suffice to say that even if the election is soon, by the time it is over the GPC will have literally invested a million dollars in May's endless and heedlessly 'organized' campaigns. And that is not counting expenses like her salary, her aides salary, etc.

I think that was the official opening of their office. An open house, if you will ...

Out-word-played, again. Tip of the hat, OO.

It looks like the Greens may have blown their opportunity in Guelph.  The guy who ran in 2008 and did well by placing a strong 3rd got ticked off by Elizabeth May's strategic voting plan and said he wouldn't run again.  Then the new guy they chose stepped down last Fall and went into municipal politics instead.

I don't think the Greens have a replacement candidate in Guelph yet, do they?

Now that Mike Nagy's gone, a lot of the air will go out of the campaign. The Greens had name recognition in 2008. Now they don't, and I'll be interested to see how far they fall. Provided Guelph NDP doesn't screw things up, there's a chance of a very strong third here. Granted, the NDP won't have name recognition either, but the party isn't as reliant on a local brand as the Greens are.

Is there a Green candidate in Guelph yet?