Pie Palace

Anyone who read this blog in the summer of 2006 will know that Elizabeth May was not my first choice to lead the Green Party of Canada. That was two years ago, and I’m not good at dropping grudges, but here’s why I think she’s doing a good job now:

She represents

The Green Party has some pretty complex ideas. Tax shifting is probably the easiest to understand. Things get more complex when someone asks what the Green Party actually stands for. Elizabeth has been able to articulate our stance on a number of positions (a UN mission in Afghanistan, devaluing the Canadian dollar, and electoral reform) in an accessible manner. No, it doesn’t subject the viewer/listener/reader to a long and fairly dry discussion on what we stand for, but it does explain what we want on those issues, and why that’s a good idea. ¹

Shes reasonable

Thursday night’s debate was a great example of Elizabeth looking good. Her arguments were succinct, direct, and researched. She presented the Green Party position with a minimum of complexity. She makes the Green Party look a little bit more respectable.

I certainly don’t think we’re going to win this election. I’m not even sure if we’re going to win a seat. But I do think that Elizabeth is making the Green Party more attractive to people who wouldn’t have considered us as an option in the past. The test will come in longevity: will Elizabeth be able to keep people interested in our party long enough to dig deep and get the goods on what makes us different?

Image by rjmoorhouse, used without permission.²

1. If someone asked me what the Greens stood for, I’d say something along the lines of “we want to change some of the basic choices that our society has made over the past hundred years, to make Canada more egalitarian, more democratic, and more sustainable.” Now, that doesn’t answer many questions, (and it isn’t supposed to) but it’s honest. (back)
2. Yes, that means I’ll take it down if requested to do so. (back)

I’m back from the burning heat of the Black Rock Desert. Burning Man was good, but I won’t go into detail about that now. Instead, I’d just like to thank Darrell and MG for keeping an eye on Pie Palace while I was away.

I am surprised to learn that Elizabeth May got 2/3 of the vote in the Green Party leadership race. Good for her. I am also surprised that none of the folks I was expecting to win did well in the Federal Council race. As a Green Party volunteer I’m disappointed that my picks didn’t win, but I will keep working hard for the Party.

I know a number of David’s supporter’s read this blog, so I’d like to give them a pep-talk (ten days late): You fought a good fight, and you did a good job. Elizabeth May has 30 years of media exposure, whereas David is a complete newcomer to the national scene. A vote for Elizabeth was not a vote against David, or his vision of a more inclusive Green Party; it’s just an indication that Greens know who she is. David is still the best candidate for Ottawa-Centre, and his vision is the best road for our Party to follow. I hope that the Party will invite David to stand as one of the Deputy Leaders, it sounds like David would accept.

Update: Whups. I noticed that I missed an important word in the last paragraph. It’s added with bold. It kind of made my call for unity sound like a call for disunity. Doh!

This is a canned post, written on 2006/08/24.

So, by now, the Green Party should have announced who its new leader is. Since I’m writing this two days before the ballot count, I have absolutely no idea who has won [Editor's note: Elizabeth May won]. But that won’t stop me from offering an opinion.

Any regular readers of this blog will know that I’m rooting for David. If he has won, I would say something like:

I’m very, very happy that the Green Party membership has chosen David Chernushenko to be our new leader. He has done great work for the party in the past, and has done a lot to attract new members to the party. Much of our support in Ottawa-Centre is due to his work as candidate. This win shows that the Green Party is about more than “just” the environment, and our membership wants to broaden our base of support. With David at the head, I think we’re getting closer to winning seats.

Elizabeth May and Jim Fannon have both done a great job as candidates. I hope they continue their commitment to the party, and that Elizabeth is offered (and accepts) a Deputy Leadership position. I believe she holds great promise

Of course, I can’t predict the future, so who knows, maybe Elizabeth will win. If she does, I would say something like:

Congratulations to Elizabeth on her victory. She has shown a strong commitment to the environmental movement in the past, and has been involved in various social justice agencies. I am sure that she will be able to translate her success in those venues into a broader success, attracting the support of Canadians who don’t think of themselves as environmentalists. I hope that her network of supporters in the Sierra Club decide to get involved in the Green Party, and are able to open their vision to sustainability in all aspects of society.

David ran an excellent campaign. He was an underdog as soon as Elizabeth decided that she would enter; but his vision has value. I don’t think that a vote for Elizabeth equalled a vote against a Green Party with broader policies, that is able to attract a majority of Canadians to our fold. I hope that David stays in the public eye, and is offered a Deputy Leadership position

I do think that Elizabeth can make a good leader. I think that she sees that we need to move beyond “I’m right, and we have to do what’s right” justifications for our policy into a more open, yet still principled mindset.

I haven’t given Jim Fannon a lot of attention during this race, because I’m biased against his unilingualism. But I only have one vote, so it’s quite possible that he could have won. In which case, my response will be:

Congratulations to Jim Fannon on his victory. He speaks very well, and is entertaining in his delivery. With the appropriate language training, I’m sure he will be able to show that the Green Party has strong ideas.

Regardless of who our new leader is, I think the Green Party will come out ahead. Jim Harris, the Party leader between 2000 and 2006, did a good job at building the party. Now that we have the support that we need, it’s time for a new. One who can attract new votes; show that we’re a party with a broad vision; and let Canadians know that sustainability doesn’t have to hurt.

Alas, gentle reader, I will not be able to join you at the Green Party National Convention at the end of this week. As Greens converge on Ottawa from sea, to sea, to sea, to imaginary line, I shall be flying away, to a magical city in the desert. For those of you who can’t make it to Ottawa, you’ll be able to catch all of the convention excitement on CPAC. According to the GP Hub, the schedule is:

August 24: 7:30pm-9:00pm (live)
August 25: 9:00am-5:30pm (one-hour delay)
August 25: 7:30pm-9:00pm (live)
August 26: 9:00am-9:30pm (live)
August 27: 12:00pm-4:30pm (live)

Won’t that make for scintilating viewing?

Along with the Green Party leader, all GPC members must elect the council for the next two years. This process is a little frustrating. As far as I can tell, there are two slates being proposed: the Council 2006 slate, and Fresh Start. The GPC website gives short bios for each candidate, but those aren’t really enough to base a decision on. The only other resource I’ve been able to find is a questionnaire that was sent out to council candidates.

Because other blogs are mentioning Green Party factions, I have to get my fraction of the faction action. As far as I can tell, the Fresh Start peeps are positioning themselves as being new and exciting, bursting with dissent, quarterly reports, and money for all. The position of Council 2006 site is much less apparent. The one concrete goal I can locate on the page is the creation of a “Member Services/EDA Support officer.” Which seems like a good idea. But slightly less sweeping than the Fresh Start crew.

Having said that, I have to say that I’m impressed with the questionnaire responses from a number of the Council 2006 slate, notably: Bill Hulet, Rebecca Bromwich, Mike Nagy¹, and Mark Taylor. I was also impressed with Catharine Johannson’s responses as well. The position espoused by the two slates in the individual questionnaires are similiar, while the Fresh Start slate has a more concrete set of goals for their slate as a whole.

I’m not supporting a particular slate, but I am impressed with the quality of the candidates.

Update: Robert Groves has a fantastic questionnaire response. He takes an interesting stance on the questionnaire, and also on how the party should grow.

Update: At the request of the maintainer of the questionnaire, I removed direct links to individual council candidates.

1. Steve Kisby also looks like a good pick, but that doesn’t fit with the flow of my sentence. (back)

Today is the “you should really send in your ballot” date for the Green Party national convention.¹ It shouldn’t be any surprise how I will be voting. But I’ll let you in on my decision making process anyway.

There are three candidate for leader: David Chernushenko, Elizabeth May, and Jim Fannon. Both David and Elizabeth are extremely strong candidates, while, in my mind, Jim is hamstrung by his unilingualism.

I will be voting for David for a number of reasons:

• He attracts a broad variety of people to the party. I ran a focus group during the Ottawa Centre debate, and all four of my attendees said the would vote for him. During the past few federal elections, I’ve volunteered with him during the campaigns. At the all candidates debates I’ve been consistently impressed with the number of people who say “if he wasn’t running for the Greens, I would vote for him.” When I went to the Ottawa-Centre AGM, almost everyone who stood up to speak started by saying “I’m here because of David” – these are people who would have otherwise written us off as a fringe party filled with fundamentalists. He can talk to people outside of our core demographic. I haven’t seen any other Green who can attract non-environmentalists in that way.
  
• He is capable of compromise. When I worked with David during the federal elections, problems would periodically come up, either with volunteers or the other candidates. David was able to find solutions to each problem that were acceptable to everyone involved, kept with the Party’s principles, and left everyone involved happy.
  
• I agree with his vision for the Party. In my experience, the Green Party can be somewhat disorganized. Many of our core volunteers are political neophytes, and are new to the world of volunteerism. David’s emphasis on making the party more professional speaks to that. When I spoke with David after the last election, we chatted briefly about what we would need to win the next election. We agreed that the Party needs to provide a better volunteer experience and more opportunities for members to get involved. His vision for a strong party is built on strong EDAs that get people involved at a local level. In my books, that’s where we need to be.
  
• He acts like a statesman. I want to vote for someone who treats their opponents with dignity, and is able to disagree with an idea without taking shots at the idea’s proponents. David lives up to that.

Since the ballot is preferential, my second choice will be Elizabeth. Considering how she has been hyped, I went into the Ottawa Centre debate expecting to be inspired by her oratory ability and fresh ideas. She spoke well, but no better than David or Jim. The ideas that she espoused (improving diversity within the Party through anti-oppression training; bringing religion into state functions; limiting Canada’s military role in Afghanistan to taking weapons from warlords) were neither interesting nor inspiring.

My ideal Green Party line-up would see David as leader, Elizabeth as a deputy leader, and Jim Fannon enrolled in french lessons.

1. The party accepts ballots received in the mail until August 24, so you still have time, if you haven’t already sent yours in. (back)

The Green Party leadership is currently up for grabs, but don’t forget about the other race going on: the race to form federal council. After some discussion here at Pie Palace, one of the candidates was kind enough to post a link to a survey of the Council candidates.

Recently received from one of PiePalace’s dedicated readers:

So I’m watching the Green Leadership Debate. And I’ve decided. [Name withheld] is an idiot. I spent most of my time while [he/she] was talking plotting [his/her] death. I have nothing else to say so go join the Green Party.

I’m glad that our Party can fuel such passion. And no, I’m not going to say who the lucky candidate was.

There is another “unofficial” leadership debate for the Green Party leadership, coming up on Saturday, June 24. Sadly, only Elizabeth May and Jim Fannon will be present. No Mr. Chernushenko.

Date: Saturday, June 24th
Location: 252 Bloor Street West OISE Auditorium
Time: 7:00pm
Event: Green Party of Canada Leadership Debate

This debate is open to the public and media.

Please send your questions promptly, by e-mail only please, to Cam Miller at miller dot cameron at rogers dot com. He will pass them on to Gord Miller, who will make the final selection of the questions he will ask.

I’ve seen a few links stating that the Green Party old guard¹ supports one candidate or another in the leadership race. As someone who lives a dozen blocks away from the central office, and periodically drops in to volunteer, I have to say that every employee that I’ve spoken to has made a point of not supporting any of the three candidates.

Of course, I can’t find the links to the allegations of tacit support. But I did email the current leader², Jim Harris, to ask him who he is supporting. My original question:

Hi Jim,

I’ve seen a few postings on the Internet saying that you support David Chernushenko’s bid for leadership, and that you are not supporting Elizabeth May. Is that the case?

I’m asking because I thought that you weren’t going to endorse any one candidate, and I’d like to get the truth from the source.

If you don’t mind, I’m going to post your response to my blog: it’s at http://www.piepalace.ca/blog.

thanks,
e

In his usual style, Mr. Harris responded:

Dear e

Thanks for your email — and thanks for asking.

The Internet may be the primary breeding ground for rumours… (just a theory.)

David and Elizabeth are both EXCEPTIONAL candidates — and I am supporting both:

• Financially I’ve donated equally to both campaigns – and was one of the first donors to both campaigns;

• I’ve offered to answer any questions either candidate ask of me and provide advice as requested;

What more can I say? I think both Elizabeth and David are FANTASTIC!

Jim

Of course, if you see the shadowy hand of conspiracy behind every action, this only proves that the Illuminati are setting the world agenda…

1. In my experience, the Green Party doesn’t have much of a old guard. There isn’t really an old boys club (other than a self-selecting group of the volunteers who have enough time to do the work), nor is there a shadowy group of people calling the shots. Unless, dear reader, they are so shadowy that they are undetectable to the naked eye. (back)
2. He is reachable at: leader at greenparty period ca. Not exactly a hard man to find. (back)