Interview with Elizabeth May on policy, election strategy, politics

[suggestion taken, comment removed, why not remove the negative self-reference then, it is unseemly and surely wrong]

I'm an idiot.  YES.

Might not have noticed the interview had it not been brought here, thanks. 

In a discussion in part trying to differentiate between "left" and "green", it is too bad she restrained herself from mentioning what I take to be the most important wedge, if you will, between the two, and that has to do with how "spiritual" issues enter into or are ostensibly excluded from things.  So "ecological wisdom", or something like that so it does not necessarily evoke a "deep ecology" viewpoint, "spirituality", and with it an often "righter wing" inclination to look for practical direction among traditionalisms, that would serve to interestingly differentiate between them, more than just point to different emphases between them.

Anyway, she comes across well enough, and the interviewer sure shows his preference for her over her predecessor.  At first I thought his dim view of the previous leader was unfair, but I have revised my opinion somewhat. 

What did the thread initiator find interesting enough to bring just that extract?

There's a wedge between the NDP and Greens on "spiritual" issues?! Some theological disagreements perhaps?

D V, I thought the whole interview was interesting, but we don't post full articles on babble generally, so I just highlighted that part.

What Dobbin calls "well-established" is actually a figment of May's own imagination. Even with this kind of friendly framing she still manages to lie in her response.

This would appear to be another instance of May sophistry.

I checked the GPC financial statements and election campaign expense filing.

When parties talk about their campaign debt they ALWAYS give the figure with the rebate netted out. The rebate comes later, but is appropriately counted as reducing the debt.

Expressed that way, the GPC ended the 2008 campaign, and the year, with $1M in debt. A substantial amount, risky enough for a small party, and far more than earlier campaign debts. Having a $2.4M campaign debt would have been suicidal.

The $1.4M that May claims they "paid down" just happens to be the amount of their rebate- no doubt secured by loan holders.

So really, they made no headway on that $1M debt through all of 2009. When she says we are going to "accelerate that debt repayment," she really means they are going to start debt repayment.

In fact, Sunday's GPC Council meeting begins with an in camera discussion of financial and personnel issues. Translation: the financial situation requires we lay some staff off [which there has already been some of].

[Footnote: discussion of finances at NDP Council meetings are also in camera. But in the NDP that means anyone not a member has to leave the meeting. In this case with the May run GPC it means mere members have to leave the meeting, leaving only Councilors, who rarely offer any questions to what May wants.]

This is a bit of a gushing piece of puffery.  Not that there is anything wrong with that, but it hardly merits a term like journalism, or interview.

It seems like a pretty frank discussion to me. Great questions; good answers. I agree with Dobbin here that the Greens have shifted left and, of all the parties, they are competing with the NDP for votes:

Frank discussion - are you serious?  It is a puff piece.  If it was a frank discussion many of the howlers she makes would have been challenged, not glossed over.  This is no Frost-Nixon interview.  Again nothing wrong with that, but lets not pretend it is anything more than that.  Sympathetic 'journalists' do this sort of thing all the time, for all parties.

Murray Dobbin doesn't really do puff from what I've seen.

@hsf:

Whether its a puff piece or not is judged on the merits of the interview itself. I myself have not seen Dobbin do an interview before, but even if he had and even if some of them had been sharp, that doesn't mean he doesn't lob softballs in another one.

This one is all set up softballs. You like the answers, so you judge it not to be a puff piece.

Nitpicking Dobbin's preface to the interview:

They are already spending very big to win that seat, have been for 6 months now.

Understandable it would look like that from where we sit.

But all the evidence has been that the GPC only competes somewhat more with the NDP for votes, than it does with the Liberals [with the number of Green/Cons swings substantially behind].

And when you look acreoss the raw vote shifts in 2008 riding campaigns... you see a lot of evidence of that Green/Lib shifting.

There's no reason to think anything has changed. 

As to whether the GPC has substantively shifted its position to the left- I can see where you would get that impression reading the policy documents. But thats not where most voters- including Green supporters and leaners get their information and form their impressions.

Party policy and platforms are a product of what the most vociferous members want to see. In practice its mostly for people like you. Where the party in practice makes the choice to position itself may be another matter entirely. And this is most true of the GPC of any of the parties.

Elizabeth May's positioning is all over the map- her answer here is an example, and she has contradicted the party policy to the right when she sees fit [never seen her do that to the left].

That makes sense to me, as the Greens would be attractive to left-leaning Liberal voters.

I think it's fair to say that the Green's policy documents reflect the party position. Vision Green I understand was prepared by the Shadow Cabinet.

Well, without examples I can't say much about that. But generally speaking, some of the Green policies can be seen as "right" and others as "left", but overall they are a progressive party that is more on the NDP's turf (or where the NDP *should* be if they had a coherent vision to share) than the Liberals.

The Green Party is not really a left-wing party though, and that is something that needs to be pointed out.

In one of the recent polls on the possibility of a future Liberal-NDP coalition, Green Party voters were the most opposed to it, after Conservative voters.  Liberal, NDP and BQ voters supported the idea.

If Green voters are so progressive, then why are they opposed to a coalition to replace the Conservatives?

Well, so far I'm convinced that the Greens have the best policies and ideas. There are some folks in the Greens pushing for things that will really create a fairer society, like land reform and monetary reform [19]. That the NDP does not champion these things is very unfortunate. Instead of real monetary reform, the NDP talks about credit card fees. I just don't have confidence in the NDP, though I prefer them to the Liberals and Conservatives.

What poll?

I'd rather point out that there is no simple left - right policy direction.  

For instance, if we look at social democratic parties in Europe, they have high consumption taxes and lower corporate taxes to support their social policies whereas the NDP in Canada has come out against almost all consumption tax increases even if they have low income rebates included in them.

I always thought an interesting comparison was the split in the socialist international between the ideologues of Marxist who believed in replacing the state apparatus with a proletariat government, and the supporters of Bakunin who focused on devolving the state.

The Green's have a more libertarian, small government, small business and measured nature.  Much of the support are from extremely socially progressive individuals who are not particularly supporters of big labour policies or forced egalitarianism.  Many of them are more favorable to private sector and self achievement scenario's, choosing to focus on good and bad business practices rather than labour versus capital debates.

In many ways the Greens will be much more socially libertarian.  More likely to support items like legalization of marijuana, and social policies that are not socially conservative.  However, the average NDP supporter probably has quite similar social leanings.  

Fiscally though, there is a much different divide and approach.  Green policy are more accepting of the role of markets and choose to use externalities and regulations to control activities.  Greens tend to favor strong labour standards - minimum wage, safe working conditions, -- but we don't necessarily agree with collectivism beyond that point.  Unions, for many Greens, have over stretched their mandates, driven up the cost of delivering services and remove merit and competition, and villanized entrepreneurism.

The NDP has been tied so closely to the organized labour movement.  Many key NDP supporters have and still maintain a distrust of business and free markets and policies and rhetoric reflect those issues.  A lot of this probably has more to do with plurality politics, in which an anti-business dialogue is used as a wedge issue in a three or four party race to differentiate themselves from more center left parties. Economic policies such as tax businesses are more rhetorically than economically based, and the party has always been less reluctant to challenge union industries (forestry, automotive) over bad policies than it has to challenge private sector for being private.

For many younger Canadians, who grew up at the tail end and whose notion of business is framed by entrepreneur minded tech companies, old languages about class divides avoid the relevance.

I think the Green's in some ways seem to be an evolved version of the left, while the NDP is the classical one.  Green Party's had the luxury of starting with a blank slate when they defined their policies in the 1980s and 90s.  The Greens main internal conflicts are between deep and light ecology, skipping many economic fundamentalists.

----------------------

The one thing Dobbin's question hit at, and I think is worth considering from all sides is the 10% tax.  IE, re-establishing the highest bracket tax on the very top earners in society.  (Probably narrower than 10%)

This should be targeted to not particularly hurt or diminish entrepreneurship or small business owners, ie, start the bracket in the 7 figures, but aimed purely at those to whom personal wealth has surpassed even reasonable requirements of comfort and luxury.  It shouldn't be done by attacking the rich, but done with the understanding that it is the result of good government, an educated population, security, and strong social that set the framework for wealth creation and affluence. A

This poll:

http://www.visioncritical.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/2009.12.14_Poli...

One third of Canadians (33%) support a full merger between the Liberals and the NDP. This idea is

backed by 50 per cent of Liberal voters and 50 per cent of NDP supporters.

A slightly larger proportion of Canadians (35%) would welcome an agreement between the Liberals and

NDP to only run candidates from one of the two parties in ridings where vote splitting occurs. This idea is

supported by 55 per cent of Liberal voters and 51 per cent of NDP supporters.

Still, the most popular plan is a formal agreement between the two parties to share power in a coalition

government, if the opportunity arises. Two-in-five Canadians (42%) support this notion, including 64 per

cent of Liberal voters and 70 per cent of NDP supporters.

The formal agreement towards a coalition government is also popular with Bloc Québécois voters (54%)

but is rejected by a majority of Green voters (51%) and Conservative voters (76%).

Debater: consider asking G supporters whether L and N should form a coalition vs. asking L and N supporters whether they should form a coalition. The question excludes the Greens from participating in that structure. The reduced support obviously reflects that.

Thanks Dan, I like most of what you say, though this paragraph gives me pause. Though really, it would have to be fleshed out quite a bit more for me to be able to say for sure. I guess what I'm getting at is that I'm concerned the Greens do not appreciate the threat to democracy and society from corporations. Corporations have too much power and influence, and neoliberal propaganda that is spread by institutions like the Fraser Institute is problematic. There is a role for business and entrepreneurship, but it must be much more constrained, limited and channeled so that they increase general welfare rather than diminish it.

About unions, I don't know what the general consenus of Green Party members is (you'd know better than me). I don't think the policy documents have much to say, though what is stated is supportive. If unions drive up costs, because they secure higher wages, then so what - that is a good result. Also, while I'm no expert on unions, I think stronger unions and more unionization is beneficial. That said, unions ought to get creative and play a constructive role in transitioning us to a sustainable economy. More worker-owned co-op type business structures would be good. Frankly, if the Greens and NDP could settle some of these things, they could consider a merger that could challenge the other two parties.

More detail as to May's sophistry in the interview on the financial state of the Green Party from the interview [follow-up on post #7]. Here is what the sophistry was to deflect attention from attention from:

As previously noted, the figure May gave for 2009 "repayment of loans" corresponds with the amount of the election campaign rebate of $1.4M.

This also corresponds with the amount of private loans due during 2009 according to the schedule in the 2008 Green Party of Canada Year End Financial Statement.

Crucial point: none of those loan payments were made out of cash flow. They were made with receipt of the rebates that were part of the 2008 campaign budgeting.

This year, the same schedule shows a further $1M has to be paid, and this time it has to be paid out of cash flow.

Which means the GPC has to pay out of cash flow loan payments equal to half its operating expenses.

So not only was May being massively disengenuous when she said "we need to accelerate debt repayment," she was also glossing over the blunt truth when she attributed this to "being ready for the next election".

Blunt truth: they don't have any choice; they are on the hook for paying $1.1M in one calendar year, and thats half the amount of the GPCs operating expenses.

But the main point is that other than the Conservatives, the only voters that seem really opposed to the idea of a coalition are the Green Party supporters.

How come the BQ supporters are also in favour of it, but not the Greens?

@hsf:

You could accurately generalize two 'tracks' to the Green Party.

There is the track that activist members participate that does the policy development you identify with.

Then there is the track that presents itself to the public. Does the public ever hear from the members of the Shadow Cabinet who you point out are central to policy development? Since she became Leader and increased the exposure of the GPC [at least during 2007 and 2008], on this public track May has emphasised the "doing politics differently" narrative. This had previously been done, but May is more effective at communicating it. Bottom line: this is the public narrative that draws supporters to the GPC. It resonates with lefties, but only in the same way it does with everyone else drawn to the GPC.

Drawing people to the GPC, as activists and candidates, who you are not comfortable with, is one manifestation of that being the main public narrative of the GPC and its last 2 leaders, with May's appeal having amplified that narrative.

Another manifestation is that a significant number of voter/polling support expressed for the GPC is people who are solely attracted to the 'doing politics differently' narrative, and are best identified as wanting "none of the above". And it is in the poll numbers that Debater is referring to that you see the effect of the people who don't like the idea of even the mildest form of Liberal/NDP governing agreement.

If you are content to be a part of an institution where the public policy development track is only very loosely related to the actual public narrative of the party, then you are in the right place.

I can't see how the greens say free market big business is the new more evolved way of being left. It certainly goes against most leftist policies that I know.

What it sounds like is a way of SPLITTING the left vote. IE harpercons found a way to harm the left the way their little spat did to them during the 90's. They position a green tory group as some leftish party all the while keeping right wing policy so even if they get elected no harm no foul.

I call Bullshit on being left. If you wanted to say progressive it would be hard, as not having regulations on corporation has led us to the mess the environment is in today. They could easily(voluntary) have reduced emissions. They were told it was going to happen and the corps stuck their heads in the sand until they could claim "Looks it's too late to do ANYTHING ABOUT IT ANYWAY"

So free market is a no go for any left winger. Even with all the green washing being done, there has been little in the way of making most businesses more green. You know what we did, we added recycling bins throughout our plant...whoop dee doo.

I completely agree. This fact that wealth is created by entire societies and not just by individuals is often overlooked in the so called Left-Right debate. The Right insists that dynamic enterpreneurs alone are responsible for wealth creation. They conclude that these individuals should be rewarded disproportionately to their actual contribution, overlooking the social context that made their success possible. The Left should point this fact out more often at election time so that their so called "tax and spend" policies cannot be labelled as destructive to the economic dynamism of the free market.

Well, that is exactly it.  I've always like the concept of selling socialism to capitalists and consider myself a consequential libertarian.

There is a benefit to public health care (Canada actually spends less per capita on health than the US) and an accessible post secondary system increases national productivity and competition.  It is cheaper to feed and house someone than it is to arrest them or deal with the social problems of poverty. There are clear places where government and the social contract results in clear positive externalities.

There are some things the "left" does need to be mindful of.  Often, their platforms are not just about taxing affluence to pay for necessary services, they often like to villainize it and that is often a barrier to getting real problems solved. 

The left also realize we can't have "tax and spend" for the purpose of taxing and spending alone.   Budgets in governments do get bloated and there exists a lot of waste.  

Unions, while having played a huge role in gaining required social justice, sometimes result in massive inefficiencies in government and public services.  (For instance, I used to sell computers to a school district and they're IT staff was not allowed to plug in their own network wires because of union rules.  Or when I was at UBC, one of the biggest chunks of the budget went to plant operations and department staff couldn't even change their own lights.)  Students cannot afford tuition and a lot of it is do to collective bargaining agreements which are driving up costs much faster than inflation.  A school district cannot pay a good teacher more than a bad teacher. Etc. Etc.  (At the same time, there are certainly examples where unions are still working against injustices in society and providing strong protection to workers against employer malpractices as well.  The balance is not always right though.)

The left, at times thinks that we can just raise taxes on corporations, without realizing that doing so makes your local companies uncompetitive with companies in other countries and actually decreases the availability of jobs. It sounds nice to "stop the billion dollars in corporate tax giveaways" but in reality it reduces employment, and also takes money away from shareholders which are often average people's pension plans and RRSPs.  

The debacle over income trusts was another strange one.  The NDP sided with the Conservatives to eliminate it, but income trusts were actually the ultimate in progressive corporate taxation.  Seniors, pensioners and others who were on a low income reaped the full dividends while everyone else had to pay full marginal tax on the profits.

There's a strong argument that you are incorrect about the progressivity of income trusts, but that doesn't in iteslf contradict your general argument.

I think the Green attempt to latch onto the reaction against abolishing income trust tax benefits has everything to do with trying to ride an issue, and little to do with your general argument above.

Thats fair in politics and I'm not going to whine about it. But I will take exception with it as an example of the NDP being 'strange' or out of touch.

And by the way- virtually no one getting income from any kind of direct ownership of shares or trusts qualifies as "low income". Many are people of modest means who deserve our support, but they are not low income.

Low income is having little or nothing more than Old Age Pension. With a very small number of exceptions, if you get anything from share or trust ownership, then you won't be getting the OAP Supplement, and you aren't low income. And by way of further context: it is not at all uncommon that when individuals, and especially married couples, begin receiving OAP, they have rarely if ever had that much income.

"[...] Greens on course for first Commons seat" in probable spring election in the UK? :

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/poll-surge-suggests-greens...

The UK Green issue of more practically focused leadership is rather on the opposite end of what should be going on with GPC. If diffuse spokespersonship among UK Greens might have been inchoate in good part for Britons' lesser timidity than Canadians, multiple spokespersons I think would be one remedy GPC should apply. (In case anyone is interested, I responded to another GPC dissenter's lengthy indictment of Cdn. Green politics at his blogpage http://greenpolitics.ca/2010/01/where-did-it-all-go-wrong/ [32] , where this business comes up.)

Also at that blog comment I mentioned the municipal entry, but, again, Canada lags so very far behind UK, for example.

Still is SGI to be something of a Brighton Pavilion?

I'm still waiting for an explanation from the Green Party as to why Green voters are the only ones other than the Conservatives who are opposed to a left of centre coalition.

I think this is a case of extrapolating too much from one single poll. Officially the Green Party was in favour of the Coalition. There is no reason for it not to be. Coalition politics is what brings the GP into government.

Here is another one from about a year ago (jan20):

LPC (80%), NDP (86%)
GP (70%) & BQ (85%) voters support Coalition over a Conservative Government.

However, I think why your poll result was the way it was, was the context of the poll: Uniting the 'left.' (without even mentioning the greens or the BQ for that matter which would explain the low BQ support as well.) Plus it was a totally hypothetical Coalition, rather than a real one that was in writing for all to see.

Green views would most likely be marginalized in that kind of a scenario. However, if you changed the context to a coalition in order to get PR of some kind, then the numbers would most likely shoot upwards in favour.

So you are agreeing then that status quo is fine for the Green Party supporters?

Nonsense. Honestly, you can do better than that "remind".

The BQ support for a coalition is high, according to the polls.