Today's blog post comes from Ken Summers, our long time non-Green commentator. Ken has taken the leap from the comments section to the post section.
----------------------------
I'm going to go ahead and out a rumour I've been hearing. If I heard it, some of you must also have. The difference with me is that I have nothing personally to lose by bringing it more out in the open.
What I heard is that one of the Councilors asked persistent questions about current cash flow and how the required March bank loan payment was going to be made. After some going over the figures and apparent befuddlement from the bean counters it was acknowledged that there was indeed a problem. As I heard it, this appeared to be a surprise to the bean counter[s] in question. I'm particularly skeptical of that, but that gets ahead of the story. The rumour goes on to say that the consequence of this reckoning is that immediate spending cuts are required, which includes staff layoffs.
In the first place, it may be primarily a vast and misleading overstatement of something that did transpire. That the grain of truth is very small.
But it may be essentially true, and even if it turns out that there are no staff layoffs- that would have to be visible to all if there is any substance to the rumour at all.
I'll throw a related piece of hard information into the mix. This is not speculation, it is information available from Elections Canada filings.
The Central Nova EDA had a very substantial piggy bank of funds squirreled away out of view and accountability. This was set in motion before the 2008 election, with the only possible purpose being the availability of a big stash of cash for continuing to run the essentially permanent campaign there, without having to discuss it at Council.
There is no question it is/was a lot of money. Over a $100,000 in early 2009. It was not transferred to the GPC before October 1. So at that point in time all or part of it was still in Central Nova, or transferred to another EDA, such as SGI. The link for those numbers: read my comments here.
With that stash in mind lets look again at the rumoured account that the GPC bean counters were surprised that there was a cash flow crisis right in front of them. Even without knowledge of this Central Nova piggy bank, I'd be more than skeptical about this 'surprise'. I don't care how incompetent you think people can be, the person watching the store had to know about this. Expressing surprise- and letting people think you are as stupid as you know they think you are- being preferable to admitting you knew full well there was an issue that you did not want to discuss.
In summary: my expectation is that the rumored layoffs will not materialize. Some funds will magically appear to take care of the short term problem- funds that were known about all along and were the planned 'if things don't work out, as looks like will be the case, we use this'. Those would be funds cannibalizing something. Hence the reluctance to admit that there is a Plan B for patching the cash flow crisis, and instead playing dumb: 'oh gee, I guess we do have a problem," and letting people circulate rumours of layoffs. When the layoffs don't happen: "guess that was much ado about nothing."
And one potential ace to pull out for a big cash flow band-aid, is a chunk of that Central Nova piggy bank. It wasn't stashed for this purpose, but it exists.
That link above just lists the piggy bank amount as it was early this year- at its peak. Since that time the campaign's ongoing national fundraising would have pulled in some, but have spent more than that until the headquarters was wound down. Taking a conservative projection of that fundraising based on 2007 and 2008 figures, and even assuming there was tardiness in winding down the Central Nova ongoing headquarters expenses... the stash would this summer when the shift to SGI happened, still have been around $70-80,000... if not more.
As is accounted for in that above link, about $34,000 of that would be the rebate for the May campaign. Parties do sometimes have the remittance of those rebates signed over to the national party. If so, it does not show up as a transfer into the GPC and is not part of any public filing. So it is possible the GPC got these funds and they are just part of undifferentiated GPC cash flow that is gone already. But that would have to have been set in motion in 2008, and would have been completely counter to the practice of moving as much money as possible into the Central Nova piggy bank.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
The Roland Emmerich School of Politics
Mr. Emmerich is the very successful creator of a series of apocalyptic thrillers including 2012 (currently in theatres!), "The Day After", and "Independence Day".
It seems likely that the Copenhagen climate talks will be a bust.
So Elizabeth will probably go Emmerich next week and predict the end of the world. (Do you think Stephen Harper is so complacent because he already has VIP seats on the ark?)
My point, if I have one, is that voters enjoy an apocalypse in the movie theatre but tune out Jeremiads politically. In the face of true apocalypse, people don't vote, they dig cellars or party like it's 1999.
So, if I were leader of the GPC, I would probably not focus on climate change as apocalypse. Instead, I would quietly collect small, real climate horror stories from around the world and bring them back to Canadians.
"The Maldive islands don't expect to be above water in twenty years. Scientists say Canadians heating our houses every winter seems to have contributed to this. We're a polite people, and we didn't intend this. So what should we as Canadians do about this, given that we need to heat our houses?"
It seems likely that the Copenhagen climate talks will be a bust.
So Elizabeth will probably go Emmerich next week and predict the end of the world. (Do you think Stephen Harper is so complacent because he already has VIP seats on the ark?)
My point, if I have one, is that voters enjoy an apocalypse in the movie theatre but tune out Jeremiads politically. In the face of true apocalypse, people don't vote, they dig cellars or party like it's 1999.
So, if I were leader of the GPC, I would probably not focus on climate change as apocalypse. Instead, I would quietly collect small, real climate horror stories from around the world and bring them back to Canadians.
"The Maldive islands don't expect to be above water in twenty years. Scientists say Canadians heating our houses every winter seems to have contributed to this. We're a polite people, and we didn't intend this. So what should we as Canadians do about this, given that we need to heat our houses?"
Monday, November 16, 2009
2010 or not 2010
The big question facing the Green Party’s Federal Council is whether a leadership race should be held in 2010 or not. There is a lot at stake on both sides of the debate.
The argument for 2010
It’s a pretty short argument. It is required by the GPC Constitution (Bylaw 2.1.4.5) however that does cause a secondary question of whether it should be held in conjunction with the 2010 BGM being held in Toronto or be a stand-alone event in December. Of course, a third option would be to delay the BGM to December and hold them in conjunction then.
The argument against 2010
The problem lies in our current minority government in Ottawa. We could be in an election pretty much anytime in 2010 after the Olympics. The argument for delaying a Leadership Race is that the optics of holding either right after or right before an election aren’t great. In addition, is it fair to expect the current leader to campaign for her position while campaigning to become a Member of Parliament?
The party has made a serious investment into the Elizabeth May campaign to win Saanich-Gulf Islands and will continue to make this investment (in dollars and volunteer hours) into this riding into 2010. The outcome of a leadership race in 2010 would have implications on this investment.
The questions that stem from this argument are:
“Will Elizabeth May run for Leader again”
“If Elizabeth won’t run again, should the party be investing so heavily into SGI?”
“If Elizabeth does run and loses, should the party continue investing into SGI?”
My 2 cents
I prefer an August 2010 race for a few reasons:
1) There is no reason to violate the Constitution…. ever! It is the laws of how the party is supposed to be run as defined by the membership. If you disagree with it, then put in a constitutional amendment and we’ll re-evaluate the situation in 2011.
2) It is the simpler route. No “what if there is a spring election” or “what if there is a fall election” or “what if Elizabeth doesn’t run” or “what if Elizabeth doesn’t win”. Zero what if’s. The job being a Federal Councilor is complicated enough, no need to make it moreso.
3) It provides flexibility to the Federal Council to move the date from August to December without violating the Constitution if there is a late spring or even summer general election. However, the inverse creates a serious problem for the Council. If they initially set a December leadership race and we have a fall general election, the Council would either have to choose to run both elections simultaneously (which would be a media and elections reporting nightmare) OR delay the leadership race to 2011 (which I’ve already pointed out is unacceptable in #1).
4) The Leader of the Green Party isn’t supposed to hold the same relevance as Leader in some of the other political parties. If the role is that of “Official Spokesperson” and just one vote on Federal Council, then it should hold the same weight as those other roles. Are we delaying all 2010 Federal Council races until after the next general election too??? If we are going to differentiate the role of Leader, then let’s ensure that our Constitution and messaging also reflect this.
5) The party has zero influence on when the next election will happen. We cannot do anything to force a vote of non-confidence and topple the government. Therefore, we should govern ourselves accordingly and stay on schedule for a 2010 leadership race.
Moving Forward
At some point, the party is going to have to re-evaluate this entire 4 year term item in the Constitution. If/when the party starts electing MPs, forming Opposition and eventually forming Government, it is going to cause more problems. Imagine a sitting Green Prime Minister having to step down as Leader of the Party and thus the country because of a mandated leadership race. This is where we may have to take the lead of our competition and set up a mandatory leadership reviews instead of a mandatory leadership races.
That’s my two cents. What’s yours? Have I missed any key arguments or questions? Better yet, also tell your Federal Councilors and Provincial Reps your opinion.
The argument for 2010
It’s a pretty short argument. It is required by the GPC Constitution (Bylaw 2.1.4.5) however that does cause a secondary question of whether it should be held in conjunction with the 2010 BGM being held in Toronto or be a stand-alone event in December. Of course, a third option would be to delay the BGM to December and hold them in conjunction then.
The argument against 2010
The problem lies in our current minority government in Ottawa. We could be in an election pretty much anytime in 2010 after the Olympics. The argument for delaying a Leadership Race is that the optics of holding either right after or right before an election aren’t great. In addition, is it fair to expect the current leader to campaign for her position while campaigning to become a Member of Parliament?
The party has made a serious investment into the Elizabeth May campaign to win Saanich-Gulf Islands and will continue to make this investment (in dollars and volunteer hours) into this riding into 2010. The outcome of a leadership race in 2010 would have implications on this investment.
The questions that stem from this argument are:
“Will Elizabeth May run for Leader again”
“If Elizabeth won’t run again, should the party be investing so heavily into SGI?”
“If Elizabeth does run and loses, should the party continue investing into SGI?”
My 2 cents
I prefer an August 2010 race for a few reasons:
1) There is no reason to violate the Constitution…. ever! It is the laws of how the party is supposed to be run as defined by the membership. If you disagree with it, then put in a constitutional amendment and we’ll re-evaluate the situation in 2011.
2) It is the simpler route. No “what if there is a spring election” or “what if there is a fall election” or “what if Elizabeth doesn’t run” or “what if Elizabeth doesn’t win”. Zero what if’s. The job being a Federal Councilor is complicated enough, no need to make it moreso.
3) It provides flexibility to the Federal Council to move the date from August to December without violating the Constitution if there is a late spring or even summer general election. However, the inverse creates a serious problem for the Council. If they initially set a December leadership race and we have a fall general election, the Council would either have to choose to run both elections simultaneously (which would be a media and elections reporting nightmare) OR delay the leadership race to 2011 (which I’ve already pointed out is unacceptable in #1).
4) The Leader of the Green Party isn’t supposed to hold the same relevance as Leader in some of the other political parties. If the role is that of “Official Spokesperson” and just one vote on Federal Council, then it should hold the same weight as those other roles. Are we delaying all 2010 Federal Council races until after the next general election too??? If we are going to differentiate the role of Leader, then let’s ensure that our Constitution and messaging also reflect this.
5) The party has zero influence on when the next election will happen. We cannot do anything to force a vote of non-confidence and topple the government. Therefore, we should govern ourselves accordingly and stay on schedule for a 2010 leadership race.
Moving Forward
At some point, the party is going to have to re-evaluate this entire 4 year term item in the Constitution. If/when the party starts electing MPs, forming Opposition and eventually forming Government, it is going to cause more problems. Imagine a sitting Green Prime Minister having to step down as Leader of the Party and thus the country because of a mandated leadership race. This is where we may have to take the lead of our competition and set up a mandatory leadership reviews instead of a mandatory leadership races.
That’s my two cents. What’s yours? Have I missed any key arguments or questions? Better yet, also tell your Federal Councilors and Provincial Reps your opinion.
Got my reminder phone call
Seeing that I'm usually quite critical on this blog of what the GPC does and doesn't do, I thought I would extend a compliment for a change of pace.
I just got a phone call from Green Party Central reminding me that my membership is going to expire in roughly a month. The call was clearly made by a volunteer (Lee, if I heard correctly) but an enthusiastic volunteer. Script was followed very well and a positive vibe was relayed.
So, kudos first and foremost to Lee for taking the time to assist the party in renewing members. Secondly to the volunteer coordinator who's bringing members into the office (800 number is a giveaway) outside of "business hours" to make the calls. Finally, to the party brass themselves for utilizing the volunteer base of the party to fulfill administrative duties like this and are, hopefully, freeing up paid staff to tackled larger projects.
I know a couple of staff read this blog so could they pass on my compliments to Lee as well. That would be appreciated!
I just got a phone call from Green Party Central reminding me that my membership is going to expire in roughly a month. The call was clearly made by a volunteer (Lee, if I heard correctly) but an enthusiastic volunteer. Script was followed very well and a positive vibe was relayed.
So, kudos first and foremost to Lee for taking the time to assist the party in renewing members. Secondly to the volunteer coordinator who's bringing members into the office (800 number is a giveaway) outside of "business hours" to make the calls. Finally, to the party brass themselves for utilizing the volunteer base of the party to fulfill administrative duties like this and are, hopefully, freeing up paid staff to tackled larger projects.
I know a couple of staff read this blog so could they pass on my compliments to Lee as well. That would be appreciated!
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Poll on Leadership Races
BRB has a great blog post up at his blog regarding the upcoming Leadership race for the Greens.
I'm going to follow it up with a survey. When do you think the Green Party of Canada should hold it's next leadership race? There's a box in the right hand column to click your choice.
If you would, toss in a comment about why you picked the date you did.
I'm going to follow it up with a survey. When do you think the Green Party of Canada should hold it's next leadership race? There's a box in the right hand column to click your choice.
If you would, toss in a comment about why you picked the date you did.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Party like it's 2004
… and I don’t mean party as in streamers, confetti and singing either. No, the party I refer to is the Green Party and we have regressed back to 2004.
2004 was a monumental year for the Green Party. We ran our first slate of 308 candidates, we hit 4.3% in the polls nationally and qualified for the $1.75/vote government subsidy. Back then, with over 580,000 votes, the party now had an operating budget of $1M/year plus donations. This allowed the party to grow to 4.5% in 2006 (>664,000 votes) and to 6.7% in 2008 (>940,000 votes). With the government subsidy at roughly $1.95/vote, the party’s operation budget was closer to $1.8M/year plus donations.
Last night there were four byelections across Canada. Two (Hochelaga, MIKR) in a province that the Greens are having difficulty breaking into despite this news release from two weeks ago, one next door (CCMV) to Leader Elizabeth May’s former riding and the fourth (NWC) in a province that is polling the highest in Canada for the Greens. This high polling has also has been used as justification for Ms. May running in BC.
How did the Green Party do? Horrible.
There’s no point looking at the specific number of votes seeing they were in a by-election (and overall voter turnout is abysmal!) but percentage of the overall vote is still important. Could the Greens demonstrate growth in percentage of the vote in their riding? Could they surpass the 2008 national average? Could they bring in, at minimum, their core supporters?
No.
For a quick breakdown
CCMV
2009 – 3.3%, 2008 – no candidate, 2006 – 2.11%, 2004 – 3.11%
A 6% increase over five years
MIKR
2009 – 1.7%, 2008 – 2.19%, 2006 – 3.84%, 2004 – 2.17%
A 22% decrease over five years
Hochelaga
2009 – 3.3%, 2008 – 4.25%, 2006 – 4.85%, 2004 – 2.97%
Make that an 11% increase over 5 years and a 22% decrease from last year.
NWC
2009 – 4.3%, 2008 – 7.2%, 2006 – 2.95%, 2004 – 5.62%
Not only a 23% decrease from five years ago but a 40% decrease from a year ago!
There hasn’t been time for the candidates to release any specifics on their campaigns but if they put in the efforts to door knock, meet voters and identify supporters, then they should be proud of their individual results. Identified supporters are a tangible marker outside of voting percentage and total voters that can measure a candidate’s team success.
However, the rest of us members need to be asking… what the hell is going on!?!?!?!
We have millions of dollars in spending every year and our support is regressing? The best result we see is a stagnation of our 2006 levels of support? We herald surpassing the NDP for support in Quebec and watch them grab nearly 5 votes to each one of ours. We came within 32 votes of placing behind the Christian Heritage Party in CCMV yet their national level of support is 1/34th of the Green Party.
It’s time for our leadership (Leader, Federal Council, senior staff) to start taking responsibility for what is happening with the party. If they aren’t interested in doing so, then they should get out of the way.
UPDATE - John corrected my numbers for Hochelaga. Post now reflects those changes.
UPDATE 2 - Seems David Akin is asking the same question.
UPDATE 3 - Some local commentary from Hochelaga and the non-visible byelection
2004 was a monumental year for the Green Party. We ran our first slate of 308 candidates, we hit 4.3% in the polls nationally and qualified for the $1.75/vote government subsidy. Back then, with over 580,000 votes, the party now had an operating budget of $1M/year plus donations. This allowed the party to grow to 4.5% in 2006 (>664,000 votes) and to 6.7% in 2008 (>940,000 votes). With the government subsidy at roughly $1.95/vote, the party’s operation budget was closer to $1.8M/year plus donations.
Last night there were four byelections across Canada. Two (Hochelaga, MIKR) in a province that the Greens are having difficulty breaking into despite this news release from two weeks ago, one next door (CCMV) to Leader Elizabeth May’s former riding and the fourth (NWC) in a province that is polling the highest in Canada for the Greens. This high polling has also has been used as justification for Ms. May running in BC.
How did the Green Party do? Horrible.
There’s no point looking at the specific number of votes seeing they were in a by-election (and overall voter turnout is abysmal!) but percentage of the overall vote is still important. Could the Greens demonstrate growth in percentage of the vote in their riding? Could they surpass the 2008 national average? Could they bring in, at minimum, their core supporters?
No.
For a quick breakdown
CCMV
2009 – 3.3%, 2008 – no candidate, 2006 – 2.11%, 2004 – 3.11%
A 6% increase over five years
MIKR
2009 – 1.7%, 2008 – 2.19%, 2006 – 3.84%, 2004 – 2.17%
A 22% decrease over five years
Hochelaga
2009 – 3.3%, 2008 – 4.25%, 2006 – 4.85%, 2004 – 2.97%
Make that an 11% increase over 5 years and a 22% decrease from last year.
NWC
2009 – 4.3%, 2008 – 7.2%, 2006 – 2.95%, 2004 – 5.62%
Not only a 23% decrease from five years ago but a 40% decrease from a year ago!
There hasn’t been time for the candidates to release any specifics on their campaigns but if they put in the efforts to door knock, meet voters and identify supporters, then they should be proud of their individual results. Identified supporters are a tangible marker outside of voting percentage and total voters that can measure a candidate’s team success.
However, the rest of us members need to be asking… what the hell is going on!?!?!?!
We have millions of dollars in spending every year and our support is regressing? The best result we see is a stagnation of our 2006 levels of support? We herald surpassing the NDP for support in Quebec and watch them grab nearly 5 votes to each one of ours. We came within 32 votes of placing behind the Christian Heritage Party in CCMV yet their national level of support is 1/34th of the Green Party.
It’s time for our leadership (Leader, Federal Council, senior staff) to start taking responsibility for what is happening with the party. If they aren’t interested in doing so, then they should get out of the way.
UPDATE - John corrected my numbers for Hochelaga. Post now reflects those changes.
UPDATE 2 - Seems David Akin is asking the same question.
UPDATE 3 - Some local commentary from Hochelaga and the non-visible byelection
15000
I missed it yesterday.... 15,000 hits and climbing!
Thanks to all my readers for their visits and their comments....
.... except the two comments about the Unabomber and the Klan. I didn't like those very much.
Thanks to all my readers for their visits and their comments....
.... except the two comments about the Unabomber and the Klan. I didn't like those very much.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
