Dec 12, 2008

Put May Under a Leadership Review

I am utterly dismayed by the lack of meaningful progress of the Green Party of Canada (GPC) since the 2006 election. No, make that appalled by the amount of GPC political and financial capital that had been wasted through the disastrous actions of its leader, Elizabeth May.

When you cheese off a major media newspaper, as May has with the National Post, you know that the leader was a train wreck for the party.

So what is the problem that needs fixing, you might ask? Consider these examples of conduct as symptoms of the problem:

1. Ms. May has had a hate-on for Stephen Harper and the Conservatives for a long time now, going back to her Sierra Club and "Think Twice Coalition" (the last hurrah of Buzz, Maude, and all the other vested interest groups).
"Mr. Harper's politics aren't just a threat to Canada; they're a threat to the planet"
(Just an extract of the hyperbolic Think Twice Press Conference, Jan 17/06 during the 2006 election, I believe)
2. Once a lobbyist and a self-interest proponent, always one. This time Ms. May hijacked the GPC (and its unwitting membership and resources) to continue her hate-on (massively AGAINST something), rather than be FOR the GPC ideals, objectives and platform.
Mike Nagy, Green Candidate, Guelph, "blamed calls for strategic voting for a drop in party support on voting day.

"Elizabeth May called for it on some occasions but the party itself was not calling for strategic voting," Nagy said in an interview ... May once stated she would rather see no Green MPs and the Conservatives out of power than a full caucus with Harper as prime minister.

Nagy, the party's environment critic, also made clear he doesn't back May's call for an anti-Conservative coalition. "I believe you promote Green values and you get Greens elected to Parliament. It's not about trying to stop one party," he said. "There has to be some serious discussion in the party so that we are not compromising our votes for the sake of other parties.""

-------------------------------------------------------------
"... there is significant grumbling over Ms. May's refusal to urge Canadians to vote Green in all ridings". Anouk Hoedeman, who has worked as spokesperson for the Green Party of Ontario and is president of the Green Party riding association in Ottawa Centre, said Mr. Cotter's website speaks to a sense of frustration with Ms. May among some Greens.

“The website is a sign that there is a lot of anger and maybe confusion within the party over the whole strategic voting issue and how that was handled,” Ms. Hoedeman said. The Green candidate in Ottawa Centre finished 39 votes short of 10 per cent.

“This is exactly what we were afraid would happen,” Ms. Hoedeman said. “So from our perspective, the whole strategic voting movement was very damaging. And the mixed messaging that Elizabeth sent out was very, very damaging to our campaign.”

-----------------------------------------------------------

David Chernushenko, who came second to Ms. May in the party's 2006 leadership race and has accused Ms. May of selling out the party, disputes Ms. May's assertion that the media are to blame.

“I've actually listened to the tapes. I've watched her and cringed as there have been words, at the end, following a very clear statement, that: ‘You've got to vote Green, except in ridings where I leave it to the voter to do the right thing.' What in flaming heck is that supposed to mean?”
3. The truth-challenged Ms. May asserts that she is so smart, knows it all, Canadians are so stupid:


4. Ms. May is so mendacious that even the National Post, which championed her inclusion in the Leader Debates, is very, very angry:
" ... In the campaign's final days, Ms. May shamelessly shilled for the Liberals, pleading with voters to cast ballots for Mr. Dion's party if that would stop the Conservatives from being re-elected. She turned her party into a false front for a competitor, in other words. It was a disgraceful move, one that made fools of all those (such as this editorial board) who argued she should be admitted to the televised debates ...".
5. Continuing on Ms. May's stellar performance as a shill for the Liberals:

(First comment here)
"I was at Leadership and was told by many Greens that if we picked Dion they'll support us next time because his cause was the same as the Green cause. Thanks for nothing assholes."
6. And, finally, there's the financial hole that Ms. May and her cabal have left the GPC with, in order to promote her personal hate-on:
"The Green Party ran a $4-million campaign and nearly half of that was borrowed money.

Ms. May said her goal is to get her party out of debt before Christmas so that Greens can start raising money for the next campaign, which she predicted will not be too far off."
Ms. May must have great difficulty balancing her own chequebook. The $1.95/vote/year allotment from the Green's election performance will likely yield about $1.8 million/year to help retire the debt and replenish coffers ... if no money is allocated to running the organization during that period. And if Ms. May believes another election is just around the corner, then she's dangerously delusional. More likely it's just misdirection and hoping that members will focus on her latest and greatest contrived threat, while ignoring her on shabby and unworthy role in the 2008 election debacle.

So What Can Greens Do?

If you don't think that Ms. May is a serious problem for the GPC, or if you disagree with my view then, fine, move along and ignore this blog. That's what is so wonderful about democracy ... you have choices.

But if you are concerned like I am with Ms. May's disastrous "Not A Leader" performance and adoration of everything Stephane Dion-ish and Liberal, and believe that a Leadership Review of her performance and actions is required like every other party does, then what you need to do is send off a petition to party headquarters requesting an "Other General Meeting" (i.e., a special general meeting) to consider this issue.

Because the GPC's constitution really has no other mechanism to conduct a leadership review.

Hmmm. Wonder why!

No comments: