I've also been watching those "leader for life" comments.

Its both true and not true. Its NOT true in that leadership reviews are not INHERENTLY just a rubber stamp.

Its the larger picture of how the leadership review is structured that matters. And that is just as much true for leadership elections for that matter. It used to be the norm in the NDP- federal and provincial- that every bi-annual Convention was also a leadership election. So on paper, it was very democratic. But in practice, a leader would have to be universally dispised to face a challenge.

That said- agreement that it is not really leadership election versus review- in practice, in the context of the way the GPC operates, the proposed amendment bringing in reviews will not amount to a substantive check. If after a general election the sitting Leader is not unequivocally mortally wounded, or does not leave of his/her own accord, substantively challenging will be all uphill.

For the present circumstances it probably doesnt matter. If May loses the attempt for SGI, and given the state of the GPC, its highly unlikely she would even consider staying on. You won't need a review.

But the next Leader will be a different story. He or she will find the rules convenient- and as usual, as is the case now, in practice the Leader can keep the rules as they want.

So what is really happening now, is that the change to a review is being done because its a cover for May ditching the leadership race now.... which is all she really wants. But then you all get stuck with the real substance of what is for Elizabeth May just a cover of convenience.

Dermod, if you are a professional communicator, then I will assume you know something about what motivates people. Fact is people fear the unknown. Present people with the negative option, paraphrased to 'Do you want to dump the leader', and in the absence of an alternative, they will vote the status quo. This is most especially true for a disengaged, and uninformed membership, like in the GPC, or GPO. Why do you think so many that bother to always vote yellow on policy and other motions for AGM's? Engaged enough to vote, but not enough to understand the issue.
If presented with a viable alternative, such as in a leadership contest then at least a proportion of the uninformed will set about informing themselves. And I doubt that you would disagree that since the GPC does not systematically contact and engage the membership, there are very few opportunities to engage their attention, however briefly it may be . Perhaps 25% of members have the good fortune to live in Electoral districts with an active EDA, for the rest, their only chance to actually do anything, or even pay attention is a general election, or a leadership contest. Take away half the reasons to engage, and you are doing a disservice to the Party.
The example of the GPO is apt, while the analogy with the Liberals and PC's is far less so. It comes back to the internal health of those respective Party's. The stakes are large in the main line Party's, in the GPO, and GPC they are far less so. They have well established traditions and norms, and untold thousands of life-long members who are interested and engaged. The GPC had very few, but the regular leadership contests was one of the few norms established by long usage. It is a good mechanism, as it gives people who disagree with the current, or any leader a good reason to hang around for another two years. Once the contest is wrapped up, the membership has spoken, and sour grapes are a waste of time, so things settle down for one of the next two years.
The fact that Frank remained unchallenged for 17 years is because of the review mechanism. Yes, it was always possible for a serious challenge to take place, but Frank networked ceaselessly, which earned him personal face time with a large proportion of the GPO members. Combine with that the fact that he is affable, and seldom made bitter enemies, and his position was secure. Were there regular contests for him to face, then the history of the GPO would have included a higher public profile.
You know all these things too Dermod. I am sure that if you truly consider what is in the best interests of the Party, you would agree that regular Leadership contests are a good thing, and this half baked review idea is a sorry manipulation, that only pretends to meet the Party's needs.
I can tell you from direct knowledge that in the absence of a contest, about 25% of the Party will be gone this year. I have been working the phones you see, and that is neither spin, nor hyperbole. It is the direct stated intention of a great many of your candidates potential supporters.

MATT

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_de_Jong):

"... [Frank de Jong] was challenged for the leadership of the Ontario Green Party by Judy Greenwood-Speers in 2001.

...

"At the October 2005 Green Party of Ontario Annual General Meeting, de Jong narrowly avoided a "leadership review" when 67% of voting members voted against it. The GPO constitution requires that a leadership review be held bi-annually; If more than one-third of voting members had opted for a review, a leadership race would have been held in 2006. At the 2007 AGM, de Jong survived the next scheduled review, this time with approximately 71% support from party members...."

I recall that the Greenwood-Speers challenge was a serious one.

Markus Buchart
Winnipeg, Manitoba
(Not a Green Party member)

Matt:

As I wrote it’s for the members to decide whether it’s a review or a contest.

I draw issue, however, with the idea that a leadership review equals leader for life. It’s your opinion, based on one example that you frequently cite. I believe there are for more examples that suggest otherwise.

There are many additional variables that you also need to take into account. Having worked with numerous party leaders inside and outside the party at the provincial and federal levels, I recognize that they too have their limits and often choose to jump before they’re pushed.

The real challenge for the Green party is not the mechanism, but its timing. The party’s constitution set a fixed term, likely based on the traditional Canadian experience of majority governments. We have not had three minority governments in a row since the Diefenbaker-Pearson era. This is not something that could have been easily foreseen by the drafters of the party’s constitution.

Frankly, it’s the timing that is of greater concern to me than the mechanism.

While leadership and nomination races do attract many new members, the retention rate of most of these members is often quite abysmal. And reviews also offer an opportunity to sign up new members. I understand Brian Mulroney did a bit of that in his time.

But without an adequate infrastructure to engage news members and a leader prepared to unite the party post convention/review most new members will simply fall off regardless of the process used.

And just to keep facts front and centre: the Harris-Manley contest in 2004 did not result in any significant sign-ups of new members.

Dermod

for setting the record straight.

Dermod

Just to add to what Markus wrote.

I was involved in helping Judy Greenwood-Speers. I think the membership was right in choosing Frank, but I still am very happy that I encouraged Judy to run.

It was a tremendous "shot in the arm" for the GPO to have an actual leadership race, with debates, etc. I organized a debate in Guelph for them, and it was a real milestone in the development of the Constituency Association.

I think that exactly the same process would do a great deal to build the GPC.

I know that you are a professional communicator, Dermod, which is probably why you have a bias towards the "dancing bear" side of politics. I have no problem with Ms. May's ability as a dancing bear. But the GPC doesn't need dancing bears right now, it needs people building strong EDAs across the country. And it requires a different sort of leader.

Frank De Jong was a good leader for the GPO in that he was able to hold together a pretty much totally dysfunctional organization. The new leader, Mike Shreiner, is an excellent Constituency Association builder and I expect great things from him.

Elizabeth May might be leader if she had a real political party to lead. But the GPC doesn't really exist except as a notional, legal entity. Until we have at least 100 EDAs as strong as Guelph and Grey-Bruce-Perry-Sound, the GPC really won't exist and it won't be able to support a dancing bear.

Elizabeth and the people around her don't disagree with my read---they can't even understand the question. As such, I believe that she is a totally incompetent leader---one that needs to go before there is nothing left to the party except a name and a large debt.

Bill Hulet

Actually, Bill I don’t believe it’s one or the other (dancing bears that is), I just happen to know where my skill set lies and it’s not on the organizational side of politics as much as it is on the communications side.

But I concur that “until (the GPC has) at least 100 EDAs as strong as Guelph and Grey-Bruce-Perry-Sound, (it) really won't exist and it won't be able to support a dancing bear.”

And the current state of the party’s ground game is pretty well summed up here:

http://greenparty.ca/node/14835

Twenty-one EDAs that have signed up three or more new members in the party’s membership drive contest for maybe a total of 300 members.

I share the deep concern that you and others have over the recent shenanigans in the party over the leadership question. Where I part ways with some, is that I truly believe the ultimate process (convention/review) should be ‘flex-timed’ to a post-election scenario.

This site has expressed that POV, so no secret. This is not just about the current leader, but future leaders as well.

And despite the hype regarding a leadership contest revitalizing the party and bringing it much needed media attention, I have yet to see a contested leadership race that didn’t leave a divided party in its wake as well. The GPC can ill afford going into or being in an election deliberately divided.

If ever there was a time for party elders to step in and bring factions together this is it.

Dermod

Dermod,

The question of timing of leadership contests is not controversial at all. The original intent was to have a leadership contest after every election, based on the 4 year election law. The wording of the by-laws was plain dumb, because it did not go to the heart and specify a leadership after every general election, it said every 4 years, based on the assumption that there would be quadrennial general elections.
The REASON that the leadership issue exploded now is that instead of adressing the timing issue, the council motion went somewhere that is detrimental to the Party, and in an extraordinarily self serving direction. To whit, replacing leadership contests with review votes. A power play, pure and simple. It is a part of a pattern, and is so utterly contemptuous of every other interest of the Party that it was absolutely guaranteed to cause an explosion.

I doubt that any 'Party Elders' could stop the ball from rolling downhill now. There are not any who command any respect from the incumbent. Jim Harris? Jim isn't stupid. He has been dumped on from a great height by Elizabeth May and her crowd. Why would he screw the Party by cementing her in place? There are regional players, but nobody with truly national profile. I do not think I am alone when I say that quiet little backroom chats, for 'the good of the Party' are what got us into trouble here. They don't work, because they do not have any legitimacy at all. They are simply the mechanism wherby interested party's manipulate, and divide the loot.

Matt

Thanks for the observations.

Dermod

Dermod:

I don't see how the GPC could become more divided than it is already.

I don't mean just in terms of two factions back-biting. Indeed, I think that the emergence of two factions is actually a greater level of organization than I have ever seen in the GPC. I'm really glad to see people coalescing around Sylvie and Elizabeth, because up until now I've never seen anything but a totally atomized group of people people who were totally unwilling to organize with regard to internal politics.

We have never had real caucuses in this party. Instead, we've had "insiders" who played a "courtier" form of politics---manipulating the process so things don't go to vote (re-defining what a "year" means is a good example of that), staff members making decisions without letting anyone know who decided what (the "Party Opinions" is a classic example of that maneuver), etc. It is really refreshing to see people building membership lists, putting up alternative communication tools (like these blogs), leaders like Sylvie Lemieux stepping forward so people can rally around them, etc.

This sort of thing has never happened before in the party, and I am really glad it is because it means that people are beginning to understand that the internal politics of a party are just as important as the external elements during elections. This is how collective groups of people make decisions. Until now, we've been a totally brain-dead organization---now a few synapses are beginning to fire.

This is the first step of developing an internal culture for the GPC. Once we have that, we can start thinking about what we are and what we are not. Once we have this, the party will feel a lot more confident about deciding who can and cannot run for the party, what our public face should be.

(Just as an aside, I remember when Jim Harris was running there was a guy in Manitoba, I believe, who was a candidate. He had a shaggy unkept beard, sometimes wore a skirt, and, campaigned by riding around on a tricycle with a cardboard sign with "Green Party" crayoned on the back. Jim told me that the media tried mightily to get the two of them in frame together. It just shows how completely diffuse and atomized we are as a party that we couldn't exclude this goof from being a candidate. Don't talk to me about "dividing the party"!)

Another thing that shows how divided the party is. Why IN GOD'S NAME, would we be happy about bringing in a deputy leader who has only recently joined the GPC and who has publicly stated that he has no intention as running as a candidate? Again, don't talk to me about "dividing the party". It's been sliced, diced and pureed already!

Bill Hulet

Mr.Hulet
The'Goof' has grown into a well respected Green in Winnipeg. Canada is not all 'genetically modified' from Ontario. As for the present day Mr.Harris- too busy talking on his cell phone while at a conference in Vancouver.....But agreed...sliced,diced and pureed;and headed for the cavernous halls of the MTCC.

A Harridan,
G.
Winnipeg,MB.

How many members are their in your EDA? That's the only way of measuring respect that really counts in a political party.

Bill Hulet

Matt's comment (Sat, 08/07/2010 - 11:15) about the bad drafting around the fixed four-year term between leadership contests is right on. How anyone could have assumed that federal government terms would always be four years at a time when the country had a minority government is beyond me. It is amateurish drafting not to set the review or contest a fixed time period after a federal general election.

I like Bill Hulet's characterization of earlier GPC internal politics as a "courtier" form of politics.

Ah yes, the Manitoba Goof. No, it's not me, but I was there during the incident Bill Hulet related. The Goof, who shall go nameless since he and everyone in the Manitoba Green Party knows who he is, was a candidate in the 2004 general election. The physical description given above is quite right (picture a bearded Woodstock hippie). The tricycle was actually a rickshaw decorated with floral patterns (picture John Lennon's Rolls in the flower-power era of 1967). The Goof tried to get Jim Harris to be photographed with him in the rickshaw. Now, at the time Paul Martin may have been able to get away with such a photo op, but I and others counselled Jim that he would just be reinforcing an unfair stereotype if he were photographed in the rickshaw. Further, it would also give an appearance of a nabob being towed around by a servile . You can imagine the headline and caption possibilities for the news media. I recall that two newspaper reporters, one television reporter and a CPAC camera were present that morning. Jim wisely declined the photo.

I disagree with A. Harridan that the Goof has become a well-respected Green in Winnipeg. He is a major turn-off and embarrassment to many past and present party members. He was one of the handful of people who caused the disruptions that lead to the mass Green Party in Manitoba (federal and provincial) council and membership resignations back in 2005 from which the Manitoba party has never recovered. The Goof may not see himself as divisive (he has no shortage of self esteem), but he is. Others always have to accommodate him, never he them. Good party members vote against him with their feet.

If A. Harridan lives in Winnipeg North, then that is one of the sham EDAs with only a handful of members and no money.

Markus Buchart
Winnipeg, Manitoba
(Not a Green Party member)