Jim Harris won’t run
According to the Globe and Mail, Jim Harris, leader of the federal Green Party will not run for the leadership of the Party.
Jim has been leader of the party for at least four years. He’s gotten a lot of flak for being too corporate, and too dictatorial in his leadership style. He isn’t without his warts, but I would argue that both of those allegations are false.
- The “too corporate” allegation comes from those who seem think that anyone who works for a corporation is evil. Yes, he works as a management consultant, but his specialty is helping companies become more environmentally responsible.
- The “too dictatorial” accusation is closer to the money. In the years that Jim has been leader, the central Party hasn’t done enough to connect the membership with decision making within the party. But that isn’t dictatorship. That’s a growing pain. In the space of three years, we’ve gone from a $24,000/year budget to over a $1,200,000/year budget. The Party is still trying to get itself in order.
But this is my blog. Enough about Jim. More about me. I’ve made four predictions about the leadership race thus far: that David Chernushenko would enter; Elizabeth May would enter; Jim Harris would bow out; and a deep looney environmentalist would enter. I’ve been on the money for two, thus far. I’m starting to think I may only get three of these four right: there aren’t any looney environmentalists in sight.
Harris was accused of being “too dictatorial in his leadership style” and you say this allegation is “false”. But you admit that “the “too dictatorial” accusation is closer to the money…hasn’t done enough to connect the membership with decision making within the party.” You argue it’s “a growing pain” due to a party “still trying to get itself in order.” Sorry. You’re wrong.
The Green idea of growth is not the idea of growth avowed by Jim Harris or his friends Wayne Crookes, Debbie Hartley, Kevin Colton or Dermod Travis. These people view a simple cancerous expansion of votes at the expense of principles as just fine, and that’s why they ran into conflict with those who wanted to actually reach the right people, pick the right causes to champion, and run the right people for office, even if it meant slower total membership growth. Quality better than quantity, remember?
If it was growing pains, rather than cancer, you’d see at least some of the actions of the 2004-6 Council disavowed and reversed publicly. Just a few of the more outrageous ones perhaps. And quite a few staff fired for being simply the wrong people with the wrong job description. Do you see it yet?
If you don’t, nothing’s changed. And the GPC won’t be worth the attention it already gets, let alone any more. No one needs another party run from Ottawa that thinks the leader’s feces are florally fragrant.