Report on Greens

Green Tory is Mark Taylor. I'm here, too. So you have the whole set from Report on Greens :-)

I don't see why rabble (which I read daily) shouldn't be a good forum for hardcore Green discussions. 

Anybody who wants to engage in Green-vs-NDP polemics can blow it out your ass, tho. We're all on the same fuck-Harper team here. 

Except you're all greying Trotsky followers, and we Greens aren't :-)

John, why do you suppose that your party can poll as high as 11% in theory, but actually gets [url=http://enr.elections.ca/ElectoralDistricts_e.aspx?ed=1286]between 1.7% and 4.3%[/url] when people actually have a chance to vote?

The short version is that there are many elder Greens like myself (my first campaign was in Lanark-Carleton ten years ago) who are royally pissed-off about where the GPC is today.

Mark and I are both former (elected) members of GPC federal council. We tried - in good faith - to make the party work. 

Balance the budget, set goals and measure success against those goals.The "reform" movement isn't radical. It's just about running the GPC competently. 

There are lots of NGO's who apply the same standards of good governance. 

sorry, I decided to levae this thread, it can't go anywhere good.

They don't count if you don't get them into the ballot box.

 Boom Boom.

It's like watching a car crash.

bagkitty wrote:

Funny, I have always thought the Green vote could be largely explained by the absence of a "none of the above" option on the ballot.

Meh right back at ya.

+1

Much more of this is necessary.  Succinct bagkitty and prescient.

John Ogilvie (GP) wrote:

GPC is an amateur/dysfunctional party with high ideals and weak execution - but we poll 11%.

People are voting for the very CONCEPT of the Greens. Sweet, eh? 

Vs 17% for the NDP, which has had sixty years to to perfect your appeal to voters.

The NDP suffer under the same FPTP formula that works against your party, yet they elected 37 members in the last election, and the once mighty Liberal Party, rent asunder by scandal, internal bickering, and leadership incompetence, still managed 77, far short (by more than half) of its historic highs - but how many GPC MPs are there?  The NDP do reasonably well with a progressive platform given that this is such a conservative country. Actually I hope the Greens do well in the next election, because you'll probably get disenchanted voters from both the Libs and Cons wanting to join a "green" conservative party. I doubt it'll make enough of a difference to actually get a Green elected, but both the Libs and Cons losing votes to your party can only be good for the NDP.

You get a rebate for anything 10% and over.  I would put money on the national media having already grown bored with the Green Party story, Elizabeth May not getting into the debate, and the Green Party being unable to secure financing to run a campaign with.  Sorry.

The Green Party was the only party in British Columbia to LOSE vote share in the last provincial election.  The direction doesn't only go upwards, but I'm not sure how prepared that party is to accept this fact.

West Coast Greeny wrote:

Well, the Greens really aren't doing badly at the moment... polling between 7 and 11 percent. I'm pretty confident that the party will see another small boost in popular support next election, and for the first time, I would actually put money on the party landing one or two MPs next election. They're generally considered a protest vote across the country (but isn't the NDP as well, to some extent?) but May and a small handful of candidates are going to be taken seriously next time around (even if you don't), especially in Ontario (where there is more and more of a vote split) and BC (ditto). 

The byelections don't really mean all that much. It would be pretty stupid for the central party to throw money and resources ... which they don't have ... into races they just can't win in order to garner maybe 10-15% of the vote. They don't get refunds for that amount, by the way.

I would agree that the by-election results are not a valid gauge of what is happening generally with the Green vote. But the GPC doing absolutely nothing about them, was not the only other choice than throwing in big time resources.

You know well there is a bang for buck line where you can get a nice little bump in a by-election. It wouldn't have taken a lot to elevate that vote share to something respectable. You should take the fact they chose to do nothing as the canary in the mine about your coming national campaign. And in that particular case the problem is not money, it is the general lack of focus or even basic understanding that a campaign is a long running and dynamic animal.

OO already noted how Greens- most of them anyway- seem oblivious to the possibility of going backwards. It already happened in BC. Its coming nationaly.

You are deluded if you think that holding the vote share in polling indicates achieving the same ballot box results as in 2008. A significantly weaker campaign has a very high probability of resulting in an even bigger drop in actual vote numbers than resulted in 2008.

ALL parties are subjected to more pressure under the rigours of an actual campaign... and the pressures on the GPC are all downward from the polling levels.

In 2008 you had a leader who was in the news a lot for 2 years, and in the year plus before the campaign was the darling of enough of the media to get a lot of glow [while the rest of them left her alone]. Then she was in the debate. And you had $2.5M in spending to bolster that.

Now you have an invisible Leader. [By the way the new Green Vision is being 'rolled out' this week. Seen mention of it anywhere? May got Green Vision I at least some attention 2 years ago.] The media has completely  lost interst in her [except to report turmoil within the GPC]... and May is doing anything about it.

And given the financial state of the party the only question is how much less there will be to spend on the next national campaign. I think you'll be working hard to spend half what you did in 2008. [ Link to the analysis of numbers originally posted in Report on Greens which is in the current babble thread Wheels Falling Off Green Party Wagon .]

But theres nothing to be gained by risking going deep in a financial hole again: spending a lot of money on advertising is throwing it to the winds if your leader has been invisible.

Unless she is more fed up than anyone would guess, she won't be wishing for a Spring election.

The longer she has to campaign, and if the SGI crew has got their act together to started the long march of identifying supporters for a huge get out the vote effort, the more of a chance she has. [Whatever one thinks that it is. IMO: if the campaign crew gets their act together, and if they have a long time... it elevates her from longshot right now, to less of a longshot later].

On the other hand, if she is losing unquestioned control over the party machinery, spending all that money in SGI for over a year and a half might get controversial in light of the financial issues. Let alone of what putting all that stuff even more under the microscope will do if there does turn out the leadership race is not delayed. That scrutiny could put a big crimp on her free hand with the finances even if she is never under serious threat of not being re-elected as leader.

If the leadership election is not delayed, and there is a clear consenus that she has a mandate to go on spending as much in SGI, she might well pack it in as Leader.

Anything could happen.

Excuse me John, what are you talking about in respect to the Green Party being 10 years old? There is rounding down and then there is "rounding down" it appears.

Are you Greenies still trying to play that merry bunch of amateurs trope, or just pretending that you have a fresher face than you do, or both, with either being put into play as it suits your public excuse, er PR,  range?

The Green Party has been around now for over 25 years in Canada, in 3 years you all can celebrate your 30th anniversary. It was founded in 1983.

@ John Ogilvie:

"Greens are the progressive party of the 21st century."

That first decade didn't go so hot, huh?

The NDP presently holds seats in every province except Saskatchewan and PEI, holds the only non-Tory seat in Alberta, and an urban seat in downtown Montréal (which incidentally Cauchon will NOT be retaking in 2010). It has governed every major economy in the country except Québec, and managed on average more years of balanced bugets provincially than any other party.

It has also from opposition federally for more than half a century driven the conceptualization, legislation, and implementation of the most visionary, inclusive, and universally popular social and economic programs in Canadian history. From CPP to Canada Health Act, same sex marriage to income security for seniors, electoral pressure brought to bear on the Liberal Party by the NDP and its precursors has had a defining impact on the social, political, and economic character of this nation. Out titans include figues of indellible historical significance like J.S. Woodsworth, Agnes McPhail, Tommy Douglas, Ed Broadbent and Alexa McDunnough.

Despite advocating policies which directly challenge some of the most powerful financial interests in Canada, we sustain a fundraising and membership base which is increasingly competitive with the mainstream parties. We will in 2010, for the second consecutive election, spend the legal maxiumum without incurring crippling debt. A srong slate of candidates in every region will sustain and likely expand our caucus on Parliament Hill.

Unlike Ms. May, our leader will be included in the national leader's debatse. This will not be because of a pervasive conspiracy, sexism, or discrimination against the color green, but because he commands an actual caucus. Of MPs. There will be no Blair Wilson this time. And even diehard Greens should be able to admit the entire Wilson stunt was pretty questionable. Incidentally, even if you disagree with that assesment, the people of Vancouver rendered a pretty decisive verdict on the question.

As for electoral reform, as someone suggested the NDP is the original victim of our dysfucntional process. We're also the original advocates of progressive reform, having first called for serious examination of proportional representation decades before the German import here at issue even formed in Canada.

Unlike the Greens, the NDP enjoys bastions in Ontario, parts of the Praries, increasingly Atlantic Canada and BC which will reliably deliver seat election after election after election regardless of vagaries in the national political climate. Our caucus will expand and contract periodically, but again... and I can't stress this enough... we have a caucus and will continue to in the coming generation. I respectfully suggest such continuity of fortune is a theme Greens will also be forced to contemplate as the years and decades unfold, albeit under grimmer and considerably more futile circumstances.

Lastly, with respect to the Emay at all costs strategy, I offer one observation as an outsider and supporter of another party. The present democratic process is as exclusionary within the House as it is outside. Perhaps more so. Even if Emay won in SGI, which I must say I'm extremely sceptical of given her catastrophic electoral record even in by-elections in Ontario and Nova Scotia and notoriously poor strategic political skills, people should know how many obstacles in the House will marginalize her or any independent.

No party status. No party affiliation. No committee privileges, and certainly not on critical environmental or economic files. With one MP you're not electing a party or a movement, but a single independent MP of little clout and even less procedural relevance. Just ask New Democrats how tough it was when we fell below official party status in the 1990s, and how much of a boon its been to shatter that barrier in the contemporary context. I disagree with all these systemic realities, but nonetheless they're of critical note.  

I have immense personal respect for many Greens, and respect their inviolable right as Canadians to rage against the dying of the light. It's always struck me that New Democrats and Greens believe identical things on most issues, though there are good faith policy disagreements on other files.

I hate the whole 'strategic voting' argument with a passion. It is in my personal view a recipe for eternal political and moral failure on behalf of Canadians. Liberals try with declining success to use it against my party every election. But if there is a food chain of relevance in Canadian politics, my dear Greens, don't forget you're at the very bottom and will likely remain there in perpetuity. Sorry, but it's true. The NDP will be pushing progressive solutions like Bill C-311 in Parliament, which even May acknowledges is visionary legislation, while Greens are shunning voters by re-hashing the carbon tax from an exhaustive list of communities targetted by Ms. May's not-so-successful but eternally optimistic (you've gotta give them that) political team.

You're free to say and think whatever you wish, as all citizens of our great country are. Suggesting any true parity between a movement deeply ingrained in Canadian political history, with federal seats spanning every region from St. John's to Victoria, Windsor to Western Arctic, which has successfully governed the nation's major economies, elected Canada's first female MP, and fought for and won monumental national policies which endure to this day with a one-issue fad imported from Europe which increasingly resembles a personality cult, can't raise money, has failed again and again to fairly (again, go fuck yourself Blair Wilson) win a seat in any democratic legislature even in a time of unprecedented disenchantment with Government is disingenuous in the extreme. There is no parity, and there never will be. Not under May, not under any leader.

We should focus on purposeful solutions which enable us to act on the broad progressive consensus in this country rather than further fracturing to the point where no progressive can ever get elected and Tories rule by default well into the 21st century. Apologies for the long rant, but I hope all progressives will contemplate this reality going forward.    

John Ogilvie (GP) wrote:

People are voting for the very CONCEPT of the Greens. Sweet, eh? 

That's because it's an empty, albeit recyclable, box into which one can put one's hopes and dissatisfaction with the other parties. It's almost as good as voting None of the Above.

Green Tory, you have to put a carriage return after the opening and closing quote tags.  Then everything will work fine for you.  Also, when copying and pasting, disable rich-text and then re-enable it again.

As to your final contention, it will be hard to justify drawing a salary as leader when the party has its loans called and has already laid off staff.  And she hates being ignored.  So, we'll see.

I see people are also starting to predict that the Greens will elect MPs again this time.  Nothing like setting yourself up for failure (again).  Do people really believe that if they keep repeating it, it is more likely to happen?  When folks keep saying it and it doesn't happen, it makes them look dumb.

*snerk*

I was banned by order of federal council for the following post on the GPC blogsite in April 2008. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just got mugged by Elizabeth May

Here is a blog post which I put up on the Green Party of Canada website this morning. It stayed up for a short while then was deleted by GPC, which is fair, since it's nasty.

Some people may noticed that I was one of four Green Party federal council members who resigned last week. There were different motivations, but mine was that GPC HQ was illegally interfering in my nomination race in Ottawa West Nepean.

They took over the process from the EDA and postponed it three times while they found a more suitable candidate to run against me. "Suitable" means female, and a supporter of Elizabeth May. I am neither.

The nomination meeting was finally held last night. I knew I was screwed when Elizabeth arrived in person No-one in the room - including the EDA execs - knew she was coming. When I asked my opponent if she knew EM was coming, she nodded and smiled.

During the event I did a good job on my speech, highlighting my experience as the area's most successful Green candidate in the past Ontario election, including my endorsement by the Ottawa Citizen.

It was tense, since I had to respond to a number of obviously pre-scripted and rather hostile questions from Elizabeth and the supporters and staff she had brought.

Elizabeth argued with me publicly on several occasions. This is her right as a GPC member, but it is inappropriate behavior for the LEADER of the GPCduring a nomination meeting. Then her paid assistant took a turn asking a scripted question, then some of the other people
in her group. At one point, Elizabeth insisted on offering a "rebuttal" to a point I made. I wondered who I was actually running against..

The vote counting took a long time. Part of the problem was that my opponent only joined the party in the last few weeks and was not on the riding membership list provided by GPC She was finally allowed to vote, and cast the deciding vote.

She won the nomination, to the surprise of most people in the room. Elizabeth gave her a Big Hug. Hats off to Elizabeth and the entire GPC organizing team, you beat me fair and square.

I am taking some time to consider my options. A lot of people in GPC want me to file a complaint about Elizabeth's interference and get the result overturned. Others don't want me to rock the boat. Several people have suggested that I concentrate on GP Ontario for a while.

We'll see.

hsfreethinkers wrote:

remind wrote:

*snerk*

*sigh*

Do not know why you are sighing, when you try and feed us garbage like this, you actually deserve nothing more than a snerk:

Quote:

I see the Liberals as a right-wing party. They certainly are economically right-wing, free-trade supporters, big-bank apologists. They have a higher average IQ than the Conservatives, but otherwise not much difference. In my view, the Greens should not advocate neoliberal economic policies, they should take concrete measures to reduce income inequality, and should not be shy of regulating business, funding state projects, or nationalizing certain industries if it's in the public interest. I used to support the PCs, so I don't dislike conservatives - it's just that I think right-wing economic ideas are mostly wrong-headed and unfair / unjust.

Free trade = lyin Brian and the PC's, whom you say you supported

The Green Party advocates market fixes to the environment, hates unions and is pretty much opposed to all those things  you listed, which you say you support and which indeed the NDP has stood for and done upon some occasions, for a very long time.

Bottom line is, you are trying to feed the us here, and the public at large, the cacka that the Green Party is left, or wants to be, when  in reality it exists just to keep the CONservatives in power. And to do so, it needs to try and appear left to try and syphon votes from the left.

The Green Party is pretty much a lie from the get go, and one needs only to look at the garbage in this thread put forth by Green Party supporters.

I.e. "the Green party is only 10 years old", well actually 9, according to John, when it is close to 30 years old.

Thinking people are rubes, which is exampled by serving up this phoney crap, deserves nothing more than a snerk.