At the end of the preceding thread Whither the Elizabeth May Party? we have:
And this is a long thead - what should the next title be - The endless discussion on the GPC/Elizabeth May?
and
Sounds good. Bring it on.
and so we have it.
Green Party and Elizabeth May, the endless discussion
Sun, 2009-12-13 04:34
#1
Green Party and Elizabeth May, the endless discussion
Sun, 2009-12-13 04:41
#2
LOL! Now where's the popcorn?
Sun, 2009-12-13 05:03
#3
Here you go:
Sun, 2009-12-13 19:14
#4
I think the Greens and moribund Liberals should merge at some point.
Sun, 2009-12-13 20:12
#5
Ken S,
I follow your contributions on the GPC here and on GPC blogs with interest. You are often fair to Elizabeth and have done some impressive primary research on the financial development of the.
Thanks for the acknowledgement. And a perceptive distinction you've made. The 'primary research' being the the use of Elections Canada filings, and my background/experience in party finances.
Which by the way no one has yet made a stab at refuting me, despite the unflattering light it shines on May and her colleagues who are making the spending and allocation decisions and 'shuffles'.
But I think your analysis of that party is somtimes skewed by one thing - your citation of, frankly, biased and negative sources on Elizabeth May.
It's like citing Ray Heard's opinions on Stephane Dion. Or Warren Kinsella's on Paul Martin. Or Harper's on Manning circa 1998.
Presumably you are now making the distinction between when I'm discussing the finances, and when I discuss more general issues of governance and decision making.
And I'm not relying simply on what people say as sources for the latter. Everyone, critics and defenders alike, is working from pretty much the same information. I do generally agree with Mays critics on that, and they obviously influence me, but critics and defenders are no different in their basis for mulling info and coming to conclusions.
I will say that I only see Mays defenders making 'you are so negative / biased' responses to the critics. There is extremely little of actually addressing the substance, and that is never sustained. [With the frequent exception of other critics pointing out where arguments are over the top.]
And I think it's rich for a New Democrat to criticise any of the politcians above. There's more to say about their pundit critics frankly.
Which you could always do. Or address some of the substance of criticisms made.
And lots more about Elizabeth - who to her credit is at least out there working hard - and compared to other leaders in the Global Greens is doing pretty good.
I don't think anyone would dispute how hard May works. Though that is a bare minimum expectation if you are going to be leader.
Doing pretty good isn't a matter of just saying and doing the things the members like to see.
Very strong criticisms are made about what Elizabeth May is doing to the prospects of the Green party. I see a lot of responding appeals for loyalty, and testimonies of her spirit and hard work; but I never see any substantive responses to those criticisms.
Sun, 2009-12-13 20:13
#6
We can call them the Greenerals.
Sun, 2009-12-13 20:33
#7
Libereens is better.
Sun, 2009-12-13 20:46
#8
You're right.
"Yer nought but a mob of libereens, the lot of yes."
Sun, 2009-12-13 21:21
#9
Presumably you are now making the distinction between when I'm discussing the finances, and when I discuss more general issues of governance and decision making.
Correct. And I'm not saying you don't sometimes make great comments on issues of GPC governance and decision making. And I certainly wouldn't say that Elizabeth May has not made major mistakes during her political career, because anyone with any good sense (and I think this includes her) knows she has - running in Nova Scotia, not being more careful with her comments about her admiration for Stephane Dion. Regretablly, I don't think she has yet to realize how her largely unfounded criticism of Jack Layton has been a strategic faux-pas.
But as I said, I think that the vast majority of criticism of Elizabeth coming from certain GPC bloggers and disgruntled ex-employees (free advice to the GPC - you don't have enough money, how about suing former employees that blatantly post confidential party information on blogs) is less than true and is just being thrown out because these people are far more about seeing May's political career fail than seeing the GPC succeed.
I will say that I only see Mays defenders making 'you are so negative / biased' responses to the critics. There is extremely little of actually addressing the substance, and that is never sustained. [With the frequent exception of other critics pointing out where arguments are over the top.]
Am I reading you correctly here? You're saying that because Elizabeth supporters don't spend enough time rebutting the online criticisms of her haters and some NDP partisan, it means they must be mostly true?
Me, I tend think Elizabeth's supporters just might be more concerned about talking to Canadians about why they should vote Green. I also think you could argue that if Elizabeth's GPC critics care as much about their party as they say they do, they might spend less time harping about her online and more time talking to their neighbours about voting Green.
And I think it's rich for a New Democrat to criticise any of the politcians above. There's more to say about their pundit critics frankly.
Which you could always do. Or address some of the substance of criticisms made.
I hope to do a bit of that, but again, just because someone doesn't come online to rebut what is said, it doesn't mean it necessarily true ;) You know people have busy lives, things they want to do, and in this case, that includes building political support for their priorities off-line.
I'll end with three points on Elizabeth and the GPC and three questions for forther discussion.
1. Elizabeth May, in comparison to fellow Global Greens, is doing pretty good. In fact, I think you could fairly say she is one of the best performing politicians in that movement, considering the particular challenges she faces in Canada.
May has run as a candidate in two elections in the last two decades - the London by-election and in Central Nova. She has also been leader for one general election.
In all fairness, her results in those three elections has been pretty good. In fact, considering the relative challenges they faced in their respective parties/times periods, I'd say her record so far is better than two politicians I mentioned in my last post (Paul Martin and Stephane Dion) and worse than the other two (Harper and Manning).
After all, Elizabeth May is a Green. And if we look at the electoral records of Greens across the world, I think she's among the most successful.
In terms of her personal candidacy, I think she has done well. While she did make the grave mistake of running in Nova Scotia, in both Central Nova and the by-election, I think she exceeded expectations (certainly the ones here on babble!). And it's beyong my level of commitment at this time to do all the research to prove this, but I'm willing to wager that those two elections are among the very rare times that a Green has got about 25% of the vote in a geographically concentrated area. To my knowledge, only two Greens have ever won election in single member districts (both in MMP countries). One of those (Jeanette Fitzsimmons in the 2003 NZ election, IIRC) they did with the tacit support of an opponent, kind of like the deal May tried to pull in NS.
Comparing the GPCs performance in 2008 to other Green parties, I think it looks favourably for May. While the 6.8% of the vote they got is less than some Green parties in PR countries, considering the strategic imperatives voters face under our undemocratic voting system, I think it is a respectable result. Certainly considering they managed to increase their raw vote in an era of decreasing turnout and increased their share of the vote by more than 50%, I think the May's leadership in the 2009 must be at least seen as OK.
So on balance, I think to say May is a failure just doesn't stand up to a balanced and contextual analysis.
Mistakes might have been made, but I don't think you can - as May's critics are wont to do - say that "well if only she had followed my advice, or not done this or that, we would have gotten 12%". Which brings me to ...
2. Canadian Greens tend to have unrealistic expectations of their political prospects
Jim Harris has done a lot of good for the GPC, but sometimes I wonder if his enthusiasm and penchant for self-promotion has given many GPC activists unrealistic view of their prospects. Because I have read and talked to lots who are just sure that their poll results will come true on election day, or that they're destined to grow forever, or destined to replace the dinosaurs in the Liberal Party or the NDP.
Of course, it should be obvious that these are idealizations, along the lines of a New Democrat thinking Jack is destined to become PM, Harper is destined to win a majority or that the Liberals could never fall to third party status.
3. Elizabeth puts up with crap from people in her party that no other current leader has to. I think it's part sexist and it kinda sucks.
Ken, considering you're a progressive who follows the GPC, I'd be surprised you have detected this aspect of the internal discussion on Elizabeth yet. To my knowledge, the overwheming majority of internal GPC critics of May are men. And they're almost all men who were working with her team at some point and for a variety of reasons - ranging from they're a douchebag who's really hard to work and quits council rather than accept they lose decisions sometimes to those who got fired for being incompetent and meddling in people's work or those who weren't kept on in their position for having no relevant experience and wanting twice as much money as they're worth. (Bonus question - guess who's who!)
From hear from my GPC sources, the criticisms about May on GPC blogs really do say a heck of a lot more about their critics than they do about May. As I'm sure you can gather by now, I tend to think that they completely downplay her relative success and the job while taking every opportunity to criticize, even when it's not particularly fair. To my knowledge, no other Canadian political leader in the past couple years has to put up with that much crap - even Iggy or Dion in his worst days.
Finally, let's consider Elizabeth and the GPC in counterfactuals.
Would the GPC have done as well last election with David Chernushenko as leader?
Will the GPC do better once Elizabeth leaves the leadership?
Who is the leader that will lead Canadian Greens to a New Jerusalem?
I think you can definite "better" for Canadian Greens as either growing their vote, membership or fundraising substantially (maybe even all three like Elizabeth has done) OR by winning a seat.
Sun, 2009-12-13 21:51
#10
But as I said, I think that the vast majority of criticism of Elizabeth coming from certain GPC bloggers and disgruntled ex-employees (free advice to the GPC - you don't have enough money, how about suing former employees that blatantly post confidential party information on blogs) is less than true and is just being thrown out because these people are far more about seeing May's political career fail than seeing the GPC succeed.
You make a lot of good points which I will get to. But this is an ad hominem attack, compounded by it being a reference to generic persons. I'm not going to discuss that sort of thing.
While people make a lot of inflamatory statements about May- thats inevitable for any polarizing figure. At any rate- those are easily and righfully dismissable. But you speak as if they are all generalized inflamatory statement. But there is a great deal of criticism that is supportable or refitable as statements of facts. You just brush all that off rather than addressing it. You seem to be saying you might address these when you have time. Fine. Until you do, you've done nothing except make ad hominem attacks. The passion behind them is understandable, and I presume sincere. But that doesn't change the nature of it.
I'll note that you have put some time into generalized defenses of May, and unsubstantiated dismissals of critics. You could put at least some time into addressing the substance of criticisms.
I by the way make no assumption that because people don't answer to criticisms, they are 'admitting guilt/truth of criticisms.
On the other hand, I don't give the kind of pass you issue to 'people are busy', have other things to do, etc. No one anywhere has time, except to make generalized dismissal defenses? I also happen to know the personal lives of some critics and that they have just as much claim to doing their part. [As well as some critics who do it only in private and are very active.]
It bears saying that unless you are an 'insider' I don't really have people like you in mind when I say no one has bothered to refute criticisms. I'm thinking more of fact based criticisms such as those I make about the finances- the kind that only people with very 'inside the bubble' knowledge would be able to refute [if anyone can].
Do so if you want to make substantive replies as to the 'truthiness' / accuracy of specific criticisms. But I certainly didn't think it was anyone's obligation- let alone you in particular.
Sun, 2009-12-13 22:51
#11
You make a lot of good points which I will get to. But this is an ad hominem attack, compounded by it being a reference to generic persons. I'm not going to discuss that sort of thing.
Ken, I think if we have a discussion you can deepen your understanding of the GPC. But I'll be likely to spend more time on it, if you refrain from putting words in my mouth and making assumptions about me. I'll try and do the same :) I don't think it helps and the ones you're making so far are totally wrong. I'm not nor have I ever been a Green insider, in fact, I'm an NDP partisan. So we've got lots in common, we're Dippers with an interest in party politics more generally, I think the main difference is my GPC sources extend beyond disgruntled May critics.
But there is a great deal of criticism that is supportable or refitable as statements of facts. You just brush all that off rather than addressing it. You seem to be saying you might address these when you have time.
I might - I have a job and a life and many interest beyond politics. I can't promise to spend as much time as you seem to have discussing the GPC online - hope you'll understand but still find what I do write instructive. From my reading here and on GPC blogs, you seem to have a desire to learn more about the GPC. But as I've been trying to say, I think your perception is clouded by your sources. If you had some on the loyalist wing of the party, I think you'd have a better picture of what's going on inside the GPC.
Until you do, you've done nothing except make ad hominem attacks. The passion behind them is understandable, and I presume sincere. But that doesn't change the nature of it.
I'll accept that I criticise some of May's critics, but based on my knowledge, it's not ad hominem. It's backed by what I hear about the Greens, what those guys (and it's all guys!) have done in the GPC and what I perceive the GPCs fortunes/performance to be.
And I guess I try to write persuasively, and flattered that comes off as passion, but I've got no horse in the GPC at the moment. Although I guess I might say I think May deserves better than she gets from some of her critics, that is all.
I by the way make no assumption that because people don't answer to criticisms, they are 'admitting guilt/truth of criticisms.
Sorry for going and putting words in your mouth, but that was how I was reading your comments like "I see a lot of responding appeals for loyalty, and testimonies of her spirit and hard work; but I never see any substantive responses to those criticisms."
I think it's fair to think that there are a heck of a lot of Greens either a) unware of the critics of May b) pissed off at the critics and not wanting to give them the satisfaction of dialoging with them c) too busy doing work helpful to the cause to put in the effort substantively respond to critics of the leader.
I finish for now by noting that the "Report on Greens" slate in the recent Green council elections were resoundingly defeated (which as even John Ogilvie noted, in a rare moment of self-awareness, shows that May critics maybe aren't better organizers than the "loyalists", one of the tenets of the anti-May wing to my eyes). I think tells us something about where active Green members stand on the question of May's time at the helm.
Sun, 2009-12-13 22:54
#12
Until you do, you've done nothing except make ad hominem attacks. The passion behind them is understandable, and I presume sincere. But that doesn't change the nature of it.
I'll accept that I criticise some of May's critics, but based on my knowledge, it's not ad hominem. It's backed by what I hear about the Greens, what those guys (and it's all guys!) have done in the GPC and what I perceive the GPCs fortunes/performance to be.
If you're criticizing them based on who they are and what they've done, rather than responding to their arguments, then i'd think that would be ad hominem.
Sun, 2009-12-13 23:16
#13
If you're criticizing them based on who they are and what they've done, rather than responding to their arguments, then i'd think that would be ad hominem.
Interesting comment, wage zombie, really made me reflect. I'd say my comments have not been ad hominem. I've been making arguing that the comments made my online critics of May should be taken with a grain of salt, because they're overwhelingly from disgruntled dudes, including dismissed staff and an old friend of babble who's been kicked off multiple times under multiple names.
I tend to understand ad hominem attacks to be as they're definied on Wikipedia, as "an argument which links the validity of a premise to an irrelevant characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise". I would hold that the personal, political and social relationship between a politician and their internal party critics are relevant to evaluating the validity of the premises of their arguments.
But I'd accept that might not be case, it's been a while since I did Philosophy 101.
Also, I'll reiterate that I do think there are plenty of valid criticisms of Elizabeth May's tenure as GPC leader, some of which I've already mentioned and some that are, of course, made her online critics. But those guys also make a lot of baseless, biased and mean critiques of her too - must it be an ad hominem to say that?
Mon, 2009-12-14 00:14
#14
Scott Piatkowski
I think the Greens and moribund Liberals should merge at some point.
The Red Green Party... held together with duct tape.
Mon, 2009-12-14 01:19
#15
The thing with politics is that you've got to respond to criticisms, or they stick to you. People may be busy, but if they don't respond, it's assumed that they can't because there is no response.
Mon, 2009-12-14 02:27
#16
Hmmmm.... What if Chernushenko was leader instead of May, that's a very interesting scenario? I don't really know. The Greens are experiencing an uptick in their share of the popular vote under Jim Harris and Liz May respectively so theres no doubt that they would have increased they're share of the vote in '08 regardless of the leader. It might be chalked up the Green brand itself. Would David have worked out a deal with the Liberal leader whomever it would have been? Probably not. Would he have got more votes in the general of '08 than Jim in '06 I'd say yes. would Liz May have done better without making that deal with Dio, its a possibility. I couldn't find a video of these two duking it out in the Greens' leadership debate to see who would be the more formidable in a all leaders debate in the general so I will not bring up the inclusion of the Green leader in the debate on this scenario.
Will the greens do better without May? This question is obviously hinging on whose waiting in the wings? who among the Green ranks could take the reign of leadership? Andrew Lewis, Adrienne Carr?
Who can lead the greens to new Jerusalem? I think every single party (federal/provincial) in Canada is asking this question, now and throughout history. It's a toughy, but most obviously a person with strong environmental creds with amazing popular appeal that would draw support from all ends of the political spectrum.
Mon, 2009-12-14 02:53
#17
scott
The thing with politics is that you've got to respond to criticisms, or they stick to you. People may be busy, but if they don't respond, it's assumed that they can't because there is no response.
I agree, in general, but the assumption that if there is no response it is because there isn't one is incorrect. Being a green activist is a sisyphean struggle with scant prospect of success. There is a saying among BC environmental activists that goes "every victory is temporary, every defeat is permanent" referring to the one way nature of environmental destruction. Participation in online discussions such as babble has to be a very low priority activity as long as there is one on one organizing to do, and there always will be.
I think that is is worth noting that the ratio of NDP to Green activists on babble is about 10:1. I have been a member from the earliest weeks and I think that this ratio has remained pretty steady from that time. In "real life" though the ratio of NDP to Green supporters is currently only about 2:1, so that makes babble a relatively poor (although interesting) place to spend time.
So don't read too much into anybodies participation or non-participation.
__________________________________
One struggle, many fronts.
Mon, 2009-12-14 04:12
#18
Unless they turf out the eco-capitalists, the Greens aren't going anywhere. The Harris/May types make the Greens too indistinguishable from the "other" parties to justify voters making a long-term commitment to them. Their "brand", at the moment, is too generic.
Mon, 2009-12-14 05:42
#19
So how do I get one of those sidebar hyperlinks that others have for private messages. In the edit function on my user page I checked 'accept private messages' but that seems to just mean that I'll get them if people know how to navigate the system. [and probly have to be register themselves?]
I don't see an option anyway for getting that sidebar hyperlink.
Mon, 2009-12-14 05:43
#20
The thing with politics is that you've got to respond to criticisms, or they stick to you. People may be busy, but if they don't respond, it's assumed that they can't because there is no response.
I agree, in general, but the assumption that if there is no response it is because there isn't one is incorrect.
While I said and meant that I don't assume there is no response, I think OO's point is valid in practice.
For what its worth, I think the reason there is no response is at bottom a self righteous "we don't have to". In the case of the crew around May who actually make all the decisions, it is at bottom an arrogant 'we don't have to.'
In the case of largehearted boy and many others who are not in that charmed circle, its more complex. But at bottom not terribly different: having what you feel is a fact based validation that the critics essentially have no case and/or are all people with predictable axes to grind, you award yourselves the privilege of dismissing the critics with no more than ad hominem attacks.
You mentioned lhb, that you might answer some of the substance of what critics have said, but can't devote the time I have to my [strange] hobby of Green watching. Fair enough. But you've devoted a fair bit of time to listening to your informants, to reading the critics blogs, to making the ad hoimem attacks on the critics, and to formulating some substantive responses where you feel on solid ground but do not adress what critics say, but zero time to adressing the substance of criticisms. [While again, my comment that no one ever gives the substantive defenses was never directed at you. It was a statement that it never happens. You brought yourself in. Though now that you have, I think are so far delivering a representative sample of what happens on a larger scale. At least with the generally typical arrogance and self-righteousness absent.]
And by the way, I do also hear from people who are defenders of May. I'm thinking of writing an article for Rabble where I park my inclinations, and solicit opinions from all sides about leadership and organizational questions. I know persons who when talking to me both substantively address what critics say, and ultimately and pretty unreservedly defend May. But I doubt very much they will do both if it is to be quoted. I think that says something. [And if some lurker out there has some kind of profile localy or nationaly within, think you are similarly inclined, but would be willin to be quoted, send me a private message.]
Mon, 2009-12-14 06:07
#21
I think it's fair to think that there are a heck of a lot of Greens either a) unware of the critics of May b) pissed off at the critics and not wanting to give them the satisfaction of dialoging with them c) too busy doing work helpful to the cause to put in the effort substantively respond to critics of the leader.I finish for now by noting that the "Report on Greens" slate in the recent Green council elections were resoundingly defeated (which as even John Ogilvie noted, in a rare moment of self-awareness, shows that May critics maybe aren't better organizers than the "loyalists", one of the tenets of the anti-May wing to my eyes). I think tells us something about where active Green members stand on the question of May's time at the helm.
I agree about what it appears most Greens think, and so i think do most of the vehement critics you have an antipathy for. As to the 'pissed of' part, and the too busy doing good work- that cuts both ways. Most critics are not as willing to take abuse and have people think things about them that the Mark Taylors are willing to absorb. Its just not worth it. Life is too short. Etc. They don't want to alient others, even put at risk what they like doing within the party organization. Etc. In other words, they are intimidated. It doesn't take secret police for people to not want to speak up.
That doesn't account for so few people voting for the critics. But the marginalization of their voices [ie, so few will speak out] contributes to that. Let alone things like the Leader blogging who she would like see elected to Council- which should be a no brainer that you just don't do in a party.
I've also said more tha once that if May were to run now or in August for re-election as Leader, she'd win hands down without even having to campaign. And I think thats the view of most critics who unlike me actually have a stake in this. They want the leadership election as the constitution requires because they want to have a full airing of the issues of leadership. Sure they'd love to beat her. But May being pretty much guaranteed to win doesn't make them want any less to have a real debate.
But the real point is that how much people adore May and/or criticaly support her is not in any way an answer to questions about her as leader of the party as organization. The healthy approach is that you discuss that, then you see people want.
Mon, 2009-12-14 08:08
#22
Would the GPC have done as well last election with David Chernushenko as leader?
Will the GPC do better once Elizabeth leaves the leadership?
If I was a Green I'm sure I would have supported May for Leader. That I don't expect Chernushenko would have been good, even with hindsight knowledge of May's substantial downsides, does not say she has been a good Leader or that she should remain.
Will the GPC do better without her? I think she is doing serious damage to the organization of the GPC. The longer it goes on, the worse it gets and the harder it will be to recover. As a non-Green partisan, no sweat for me. But I empathise with the GPC critics. I share the general values about organizational process, both as principle and for compelling pragmatic reasons. So I'm clear what I would be doing in their shoes: barring some radical change that at this point seems extremely remote [and is actually dangerous to hope for], May has got to go as Leader.
Do I personally think the GPC will do better with the next Leader? Thats one where I know my stake or lack thereof makes a substantial difference. If it was going on in my party I'd be unequivocal: I want this Leader to be replaced, period. And I have X, Y and Z reasons to be optimistic it won't just be turfing him/her, that we are going to thrive after. But since I'm an outsider without a stake in optimism- I think the GPC is in for a rough ride after May is gone.
But even there with that pessimism, the choice would be clear to me: staying with May is a definite bad proposition. We haven't seen the alternatives yet, at least there is possibility there.
There are only 2 substantive claims you made for the benefits of her leadership that I think can be backed up. One is that the Green raw vote share increased in 2008. But it was pretty modest, and it followed a love affair between May and the Eastern media, her in the limelight and in the debates. Barring some turnaround those positive conditions are all played out. She's out of sight, she's unlikely to be in the debates, she shows no awareness or even concern how to turn that around. Shes a slower burning version of the Iggy phenomena- media darling, until people decide there really isn't any substance to you. Slower burning because May was not under the glare that Iggy is- but the same dynamic.
Not to be written off yet. But not on a good trend or showing any capacity for critical examination and re-booting. In no small part because frankly she shows no motivation for the national leader role any more. Written off or not, those are very legimate questions whether she is a good Leader for right now. [Fundrasing by the way is the same: just like with Iggy, rose modestly with her star in 2007 and 2008; and now headed south with her eclipse, and no staff fundraising skill base to fall back on with the revolving door there.]
She definitely is a good candidate. Her campaigns to date have actually been very lacklustre. Frankly, she's expected to get 25% minimum when she has her choice of ridings, several times the resources any riding candidate has had anywhere in any party, and indisputable star candidate qualities despite the severe handicap of running for the GPC. But how good or lousy her campaigns have been, and how much responsibility she has for that [a lot], is beside the main point- she is a very good campaigner. People who meet her on the door like her, she inspires people who work in her campaigns, and she brings 'star qualities' that outshine her local opponents.
May is head and shoulders above anyone else in the all important for the GPC goal of electing a first MP.
But being the Leader of the GPC adds very little to her local appeal. She's Elizabeth May, who happens to be the leader of the GPC... which means absolutely nothing at all to the 90% of the locals who were not already favourably disposed to voting for a Green candidate even if its a nobody.
And being an excellent candidate qualifies her not in the least for being Leader, or for overall attracting people and resources to the GPC.
Mon, 2009-12-14 10:52
#23
OK.
I said, and still mean, that you are not in any way obliged to make some kind of substantive response to the arguments of May's critics.
But that in principle point is tempered from the outset by your having expended considerable energy impugning the critics, then to giving general defenses of May that do not address the arguments of critics.
In addition I have now addressed those points of your defense that are at least speaking to how good a leader May is, and in light of alternatives. Thats an additional incentive for you to respond in kind to the actual arguments of critics.
And given how much has been said about May, and that a great deal of it is guaranteed to be over the top in a lot of ways, severe cherry picking of what to respond to should be ruled out. I responded to your central arguments, I think you should aspire to the same.
I'll even give you a big juicy target. I have not just blogged about the very surprising to everyone amounts of money that have been spent and continue to be spent on May's campaigns. And after all, there is very little room to argue those numbers. I have further argued that there has been a long running deliberate effort to move money around in ways to keep those amounts out of view and that:
[1] It was hugely disingenuous of May early this year to bein the narrative that "maybe the party wants to put more resources into me winning a seat" when to date about $300,000 had been spent in 2 campaigns [with the Central Nova one still spending substantialy each month], and when shell games had been played for several months back to park out of sight and central accounatbility funds additional to the $330K .
[2] In light of those amounts and practices May told a really big fib when she said that her campaign received no resources that any other Green campaign did.
[3] Another big fib when in response to her saying that, the reporter asked her what about the $80,000 transferred into her campaign by the party... whereupon she answered that half was a "repayment" from her London North Centre campaign [??!], and the other half was a loan. Except that her writ period campaign never needed more than at most $10K very temporarily, and produced a substantial surplus without the $80K transfer.... and that despite a huge cash surplus from her candidate campaign [the $80K transfer and more], not a cent of that "loan" was repaid to the GPC.
But I'm also perfectly willing to defend anything you want to find where I have made more general assessments about what May has done viz the organisation of the GPC, which I would agree I am in no better position than you or a lot of other people to know about. Preferably something I've said here in Babble, since thats where we are. But it could be something I've said on a Green blog.
It would be problematic, and questionable fairness, to bring here something another critic has said on some blog. But I wouldn't rule that out. If I think I know enough about the particular arguement[s], I might adopt it as my own.
Mon, 2009-12-14 10:56
#24
Largeheart' is surely right to point to unreasonableness in context of expectations of, say, 12%
for GPC, thus minimizing some criticisms of their leader. My own criticsms among Greens had been
with an eye to help groom them for a more important future, not for deluded nearer term attempts.
Given the general calibre and breadth of so many of those involved, however, after very much effort over
several years, I lowered my already low expectations. Not that GPC is singular, rather the opposite,
for as they have misguidedly attempted to attain much more mainstream acceptability, they have lost
much taste for a certain zing that could really distinguish them in a public service vein,
and if provocatively pursued positions might soften some shorter term electoral prospects,
it should strengthen them in the medium term. But even had my copious advice been more
closely taken, the party structure might not allow it to endure.
"Would the GPC have done as well last election with David Chernushenko as leader?
Will the GPC do better once Elizabeth leaves the leadership?
Who is the leader that will lead Canadian Greens to a New Jerusalem?"
In some 50% over 4% is not much room to calculate "as well" or not, but I think there would also
have been a mild increase under Davic C., for whom I actually voted over Eliz. M., hard as that was for me, but the tip finally based on things mentioned here, like propensity to say bad things about Layton that were inappropriate (see
in the middle of my stalwart defence of Eliz. in one episode, last paragraph at
http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/7/2009-07-14/stephen-harper-bashes-religi... ,
also througout that webpage).
To "do better" there would have to be internal reform on how policy is handled and developed, lest
befall the Greens what befell UFA way back or Australian Party more recently.
Greens should not have a leader in the same way as other parties have.
"May is head and shoulders above" -- KenS I do not think is correct there. As for calibre in other
regards, definitely, but for possible eventual electability or performance capacity in the Commons
or elsewhere on a public podium, I am confident several others have demonstrated sufficient ability to
be above the shoulders if below the head.
Mon, 2009-12-14 11:08
#25
Participation in online discussions such as babble has to be a very low priority activity as long as there is one on one organizing to do, and there always will be.I think that is is worth noting that the ratio of NDP to Green activists on babble is about 10:1....
There are green blogs for discussing this stuff. No need for babble.
The same is true for the critics as well: they do the one on one organizing just as much as anyone else. The difference is that they can only have a discussion online. While the ruling majority based clique gets to do as they want, and feel validated in dismissing criticism... which they are willing to spend time doing.
ETA: Counterposing spending time in discussions over governance versus time spent 'one on one organizing' is a dodge much used in the GPC. It has a factual and moral credibility akin to the 'supporting the troops' dodge. Not to mention that the people excused from that smear- the ones making the decisions and who inspire if not originate the attacks on critics- themselves just as much take up their time in governance issues. Its just that one set is annoited as people legitimately doing the work of the organization, while the other set are maginalized as axe grinding carpers who do nothing else.
Mon, 2009-12-14 12:00
#26
hsfreethinkers
[URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/environment-canada-hit-... May got some coverage[/URL]; no mention of Jack Layton.
Mon, 2009-12-14 12:33
#27
How does a blog = "coverage"?
Mon, 2009-12-14 12:49
#28
I don't know if briefly mentioned in passing counts as coverage. Unless you are counting as positive that people have not completely forgotten you. Media know shes there, and shes the topical colour for filler quotes.
Mon, 2009-12-14 12:55
#29
[url=http://www.thestar.com/news/sciencetech/environment/copenhagensummit/art.... coverage of Jack Layton in Copenhagen[/url], just to point out that it's not true that he got "no mention".
Mon, 2009-12-14 13:04
#30
we are talking about it--
That's the new world.
It's clever, funny and effective.
What's not to like?
BTW it is today's news if you want to see more in your traditional news, you will need to wait for tomorrow.
Mon, 2009-12-14 15:29
#31
hsfreethinkers
[URL=http://greenparty.ca/blogs/7/2009-12-14/long-day]Elizabeth's latest update on Copenhagen[/URL]. Doesn't sound like a productive day. I posted again to ask what is on her agenda. I'm wondering if she has or will attend the Klimaforum09 events. I wonder why she never comments on the blogs or answers questions members post on the GPC blogs.
Mon, 2009-12-14 16:51
#32
A comparative google news search shows the following results:
"Jack Layton" +Copenhagen = 54 pages
"Elizabeth May" +Copenhagen = 74 pages
However, since Layton is just on his way there and May has been there for a few days, I expect these numbers will shift over the next few days.
Doing the same search in google (not news) produces:
Layton = 25,500 pages
May = 20,400 pages
Mon, 2009-12-14 18:11
#33
hs', she has responded on occasion. Recently I had pointed out an apparent error to which she resopnded (see eg
http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/7/2009-08-30/fall-election#comment-10796 and just following).
Tue, 2009-12-15 08:49
#34
Addition to something I said yesterday, highlighted below. With following comment.
... I have further argued that there has been a long running deliberate effort to move money around in ways to keep out of view [the amounts spent on May's campaigns], and that:
[1] It was hugely disingenuous of May early this year to bein the narrative that "maybe the party wants to put more resources into me winning a seat" when to date about $300,000 had been spent in 2 campaigns [with the Central Nova one still spending substantialy each month], and when shell games had been played for several months back to park out of sight and central accounatbility funds additional to the $300K. [ETA: at that time, another $100,000 was parked in a piggy bank. In other words, already $300,000 spent and another $100,000 parked to be spent when Elizabeth May is "asking" the membership if maybe more resources should be put into electing her.]
[2] In light of those amounts and practices, May told a really big fib when she said that her campaign received no resources that any other Green campaign did.
[3] Another big fib when in response to her saying that, the reporter asked her what about the $80,000 transferred into her campaign by the party... whereupon she answered that half was a "repayment" from her London North Centre campaign [??!], and the other half was a loan. Except that her writ period campaign never needed more than at most $10K very temporarily, and produced a substantial surplus without the $80K transfer.... and that despite a huge cash surplus from her candidate campaign [the $80K transfer and more], not a cent of that "loan" was repaid to the GPC.
I continue to be truly amazed that when I recount these amounts and the practices of deliberately obscuring them, there is no reaction from Greens. I'm thinking mostly the kind of reaction where people demand information from the leadership. But if not that, at least some kind of reaction in the blogs where I post the information.
I'm always thinking, if rumours of something like this were circulating in the NDP, you can be sure it is going to be raised at Council, if not before. I know that there is almost no dissent at GPC Council, and this kind of stuff just isn't on most members' radar in any party... but still. No one raising a ruckus?
I just don't get it.
So last time that I updated the figures on one of the Green blogs [linked in the earlier thread], I asked: why no reaction even here? It was pointed out that it was indeed being absorbed and that people did discuss it- as I pretty much assumed... but that as far as reaction that it was a "deer in the headlights thing." [And I know that the dissident crowd has long given up at making sure their views get at least an airing at Council.]
So yes, I understand all the reasons for no reaction. But at bottom, I still can't get my head around it.
Tue, 2009-12-15 08:55
#35
Maybe its worth nting that when I first start posting the amounts of money being spent and the shell games played to obscure that, even the dissident crowd didn't beleive me.
Far from jumping on the information as a club, the first reaction was to question, if not brush off.
Tue, 2009-12-15 10:15
#36
hsfreethinkers
So yes, I understand all the reasons for no reaction. But at bottom, I still can't get my head around it.
I can think of a few reasons why you aren't getting much reaction: we don't see what the issue is; we know nothing about party financing; we don't see anything wrong with money being spent to promote the leader of the party; it's not an interesting topic; it's not that much money; if we really had an opinion, we probably wouldn't discuss it in public.
Tue, 2009-12-15 10:22
#37
Scott Piatkowski
I can think of a few reasons why you aren't getting much reaction: we don't see what the issue is; we know nothing about party financing; we don't see anything wrong with money being spent to promote the leader of the party; it's not an interesting topic; it's not that much money; if we really had an opinion, we probably wouldn't discuss it in public.
Translation: Legislation? Who cares!
Tue, 2009-12-15 10:22
#38
Endless discussions need to be ended.
SHUT DOWN THE INTERNET! GO ARSENAL!!! GO BLUE TEAM THAT WON ON A THURSDAY!!! Take one for the team. Or bring me a saw or a hammer. Nah, a saw. Nah, bring me a nail. You know what????
Forget it. Leave me alone. I have "PMS"? Psychiatric disorder or not.
Stay tuned.
And, as always, FUCK YOU.
Michelle, somebody has hacked into my head. Put me out of my misery for once and for all. I beg of you. As a recently graduated Rosenhan alumnus. The only university that won't give you a degree. Shame really. And I have to smoke. And its 721 which is not strictly on the hour. But, despite all these constraints, I can tell you one thing and one thing only:
iF P THEN Q
aND STAY AWAY FORM Ayn Rand
That is all.
Tue, 2009-12-15 10:23
#39
I can think of a few reasons why you aren't getting much reaction: we don't see what the issue is; we know nothing about party financing; we don't see anything wrong with money being spent to promote the leader of the party; it's not an interesting topic; it's not that much money; if we really had an opinion, we probably wouldn't discuss it in public.
Translation: Legislation? Who cares!
If you're going to say something clever, warn me first. Well, that was a waste of a good 12 seconds or so. What's for breakfast? I'm ravenous.
Tue, 2009-12-15 10:26
#40
hsfreethinkers
Another plug for E. May - maybe this trip is paying off?: [URL=http://rabble.ca/rabbletv/program-guide/2009/12/features/bill-mckibben-3... McKibben of 350.org at COP15: 'Canada is as big as a carbon criminal as the world has'[/URL]
Tue, 2009-12-15 10:37
#41
Another plug for E. May - maybe this trip is paying off?: [URL=http://rabble.ca/rabbletv/program-guide/2009/12/features/bill-mckibben-3... McKibben of 350.org at COP15: 'Canada is as big as a carbon criminal as the world has'[/URL]
i DON'T VOTE. 'cAUSE THAT'S HOW THEY GET YOUR 411. i'M INSANE.
bUT i DON'T VOTE greeN, ffs
pULLEEZZE
Must I have a business card with my LSAT score, my graduation date(s), etc., etc., etc., not CUT & PASTed?
All three BC parties are fucked in the head.
Elizabeth May. Too Annoying. You're out.
Carole James. Took credit for saving Laurel House. Fast Ferries still burns.
Gordon Campbell is going to take us kicking and screaming through the spectacle. Be there or be square. Start the revolution. I'll make the coffee. You take the Manhattan. Never mind what I'll do. Because THAT would be woo woo and if there's one thing that can slaughter GGORDON CAMPBVEWLL, it's common sense.
That and Svend Robinson. May he rest iin peace (assuming he died).
Otherwise, hey, what's up?????
Tue, 2009-12-15 10:38
#42
Please God. Tell me Elizabeth May and not another woman I have mixed her up with. SterK? Who's that? Green? Greener? Greenest?. who is coming UP MY STIARS?
Phone me, using call display, at home, right now. or sign off the INTERNET NOW>
Tue, 2009-12-15 10:42
#43
If it turns out the Confederacy of Dunces is not fiction, I'm going to have to follow Ayn Rand to Chincoteague.
That is all.
Need 411? Dial 411. That's what I do. works everytime
try it
IFUCKINGDAREYOU
rEALLY/
From a Randian perspective, what is my ISP number?
Fuck WHOIS>
Go to wiki/
Go to talk page
ASK WHAT HAPPENED TO THE GOODBYE PIE SPEEDY DELETION TEST THEORY success story?
It FAILUED.
And that's the only thing you can't do. Just can't be fucking done.
Grow a pair and come over her, Andre, and make me a pot of tea. Or else.
I'll smoke in your prsene
but far awy
cause i'm not a 3rd hander
check wiki
start with
2008
cow plate
holocaust
criminal justice system
Why, oh, why, do I bother????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Tue, 2009-12-15 10:48
#44
I can think of a few reasons why you aren't getting much reaction: we don't see what the issue is; we know nothing about party financing; we don't see anything wrong with money being spent to promote the leader of the party; it's not an interesting topic; it's not that much money; if we really had an opinion, we probably wouldn't discuss it in public.
Like I said, I don't expect a reaction to me. I don't understand why people don't ask questions internaly.
And did you really read what I said? I can understand that people don't question the amounts of money involved. You mentioned 2 good reasons: a lot of people don't have the conetx to know what a lot of money is, and/or know its going to take a lot to have a crack at elcting the Leader.
But I also clearly pointed to a deliberate attempt to obfuscate how much has been spent and allocated. That the Leader has consistently and repeatedly told very big fibs to deflect attention, and to give a fantasy narrative to facilitate that. I can certainly understand that people don't want to take my word for it, that it is not a simple matter to challenge my account of the events, and that this is beyond the depth that most people want to get into it. So obviously, that easily includes you in particular. But we're talking about a lot of people who by now have heard some form of rumour... and no one nowhere wants to get to the bottom of it?
I find that really strange. And if true, a comment in itself on the health of the organisation.
But also. Having acknowledged that most members and activists wouldn't have the context to understand what is a lot of money and what normal financial processes are... there are a significant minority of activists who have a solid background in the numbers. They do know its a lot of money, that its unusual to say the least how it has been done.... and unless they are one of very few people who would have known all the details from the beginning, they would be surprised to hear this. And none of them ask pointed questions either?
Tue, 2009-12-15 11:04
#45
hsfreethinkers
Like I said, I don't expect a reaction to me. I don't understand why people don't ask questions internaly.
Okay, well I can post a question in the members area if you like, if you give me permission to quote you, and it'd be helpful if you'd be willing to answer any questions the members may have. Can you provide me a link to somewhere (besides this thread) where you've posted this information and/or PM me with a few paragraphs and references?
Tue, 2009-12-15 11:18
#46
hsfreethinkers
Oops, more coverage: [URL=http://rabble.ca/rabbletv/program-guide/2009/12/features/elizabeth-may]E... Elizabeth May: A climate of distrust in Copenhagen[/URL]
Tue, 2009-12-15 12:03
#47
I blogged about the McKibben-May connexion at
http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/930/2009-02-10/elizabeth-may-who-runs-gre... .
(Mentioned him & his effort also at http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/930/2009-06-25/i-would-have-said-no-ill-f... ).
Tue, 2009-12-15 14:26
#48
Like I said, I don't expect a reaction to me. I don't understand why people don't ask questions internaly.
Okay, well I can post a question in the members area if you like, if you give me permission to quote you, and it'd be helpful if you'd be willing to answer any questions the members may have. Can you provide me a link to somewhere (besides this thread) where you've posted this information and/or PM me with a few paragraphs and references?
Thats a straightforward approach. The second time I posted above is a pretty boiled down chunk that I think would be good to quote. And the most succint totalling of all the numbers is in the blogpost:
http://reportongreens.blogspot.com/2009/11/rumors-piggy-banks-and-guest.html
The data all comes from Elections Canada filings. So people can check it on their own. Not that it is easy. Even people with some experience in navigating the site would probably need to question me. But I'm willing to help even a complete novice work at refuting me. The EC site is not the most logically organized, so I'd want to give navigational guidance on the phone; but can answer simple questions with email. Anyway, I'll PM you my contact info.
Same goes for anyone who wants to contact me here- send me a private message if you want to do your own digging.
Tue, 2009-12-15 15:26
#49
Elizabeth Who??
Tue, 2009-12-15 16:38
#50
----
Tue, 2009-12-15 21:46
#51
I finish for now by noting that the "Report on Greens" slate in the recent Green council elections were resoundingly defeated (which as even John Ogilvie noted, in a rare moment of self-awareness, shows that May critics maybe aren't better organizers than the "loyalists", one of the tenets of the anti-May wing to my eyes). I think tells us something about where active Green members stand on the question of May's time at the helm.
Speak of the devil, and up he pops :-) As for self-awareness, at least I know what my own name is. My name is John Ogilvie. What is yours, LargeAssedBoy?
I made the point that you quote ruefully, to remind May opponents (and they are much larger than one blog) that simply endorsing council candidates on their blogs wasn't going to get rid of EM or her toadies.
Elizabeth has the incumbent advantage, the "status-quo" vote, and it takes proper grassroots organization, call-the-members-twice work, to change the status-quo. Which wasn't done on the council vote. But which I hope will happen when we have a leadership race in 2010.
Oh, that's right. GPC Council will propose a motion in February to make Elizabeth leader until sometime after the next - unscheduled - election. 2010. 2011. Whatever. This is a woman who wrote a book recently about compromised democracy. (I don't remember the title, I didn't read it. What EM knows about democracy could be written on a napkin.)
I'm one of the people you denounce for 1) being male 2) resigning from GPC council. The one has nothing to do with the other, despite what EM says. I've worked happily for lots of competent females.
John