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.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
I would like to see the race go forward to culminate with the Leadership convention in Toronto. The race will need clarity, and a degree of predictability in order to allow the various campaigns to be as effective as possible. If there is a general election that intervenes, so be it. The fact is that the race is intended to clarify the future direction of the Party, and it's one of the few chances that the membership has to express their will. The race also generates big membership gains, and publicity for the Party, so it serves a very practical purpose as well. I don't see any better way than to have predictable timing, culminating in a great convention at the centre of the universe, Toronto. (that's a joke folks).
We are in perpetual minority government land now, and there's no doubt in my mind that there is no time that doesn't have a risk of a co-incidental General election. Life must still go on, and the Leadership will always require periodic refreshment, so let's bite the bullet, eh?
This is simple.
A leadership race without a convention would make the party look ridiculous (a mail-in ballot for leader? No rousing speeches?)
The conventions are biannual general meetings (BGM) scheduled by the constitution for Aug 2010 and sometime in 2012.
The only way to change this is
1) nominally schedule the leadership race for Dec 2010,
2) introduce a motion at the Aug BGM to change the constitution to formally create a "leadership review" event after each general election, which is how other parties do it. This would be an improvement for GPC.
If this motion fails, we have a Dec 2010 leadership race. If it passes, Elizabeth gets two general elections to succeed.
I'd personally prefer a new leader heading into the next election in 2010 or 2011 (i.e. an Aug 2010 leadership vote), but I wanted to lay it out.
Here's another idea:
Have the constitution unfold as it's written, but with an agreement from the present leader that six months following the next general election, she'll test her leadership support through a review (mail-in) or if she's inclined resign.
Serious candidates can then decide whether to challenge in 2010 or wait until post-election.
In the meantime keep a tight grip on the budget.
I like mandatory leadership contests (as opposed to reviews.. which force you to vote against someone) every four years. With reviews you get perpetual leaders, with no one really willing to publicly present an option.
However, I don't like arbitrary timing.
Something like this will suffice.
The elected party leader will be appointed for a minimum term of four years or until the next general election, which ever is greater, with an open leadership contest to be called within 6 months of the election and a vote held no later than 12 months after an election. In the case of a minority government, or government terms lasting less than four years, a leadership contest will happen within 6 months of a leaders second election.
Ultimately, I like to see a leadership contest after every election. Or we could go with a different leadership model, have a elected president responsible for administration, and a leadership contest 9 months prior to a fixed election. Having the party leader serve as more of a election year flag bearer. (Of course, I support an elected head of state, so I am biased..)
My suspicion is that if the present leader does not win SGI that she'll likely want to step aside; therefore, at least this time the review would be preempted by an actual leadership race.
My idea above permits the best of a bad situation. The constitution is uphelp by allowing candidates to run for the leadership in 2010, but by indicating her willingness to the 6 month idea, serious candidates would likely wait until after the election saving the party a costly ($s and credibility) leadership race prior to a possible election or just after.
I don't understand how the money is saved. Unless you mean that there would be an agreement that the constitutional requirement would be filled by having a pro forma vote where May got no opposition.
Then after the election, she triggers the race by resigning?
Hi Ken:
The party has a finite pool of donors to give to either a general election campaign or leadership candidates.
Between now and the next election those funds are best directed towards electing Green MPs (note plural)and not having what would undoubtedly be a divisive leadership race possibly in the lead-up to a general election.
No better way to turn off donors than by showing a house divided.
If all potential leadership candidates knew that there was an agreement from the present leader to revisit the leadership issue 6 months after the election they could all bide their time and fundraising appeals.
This does not preempt a possible leadership cahllenge at the 2010 BGM (as stated above the constitution would unfold as written), but if a candidate were to step forward it would likely be a token effort to make a point rather than to mount a serious, fully funded leadership bid. Party officials could respond accordingly to ensure that party resources continue to be directed where they should be.
Its not at all inconceivable that we could go through 2010 AND 2011 without an election.
I personally don't see the balance of forces changing- because its so hard for the Conservatives to get the extra mile of being confident of getting a majority.
By late 2011 they could just call an election without blowback, making it more likely they would succeed, so I can see by then that it will just happen any time. But very likely, not before then.
That would be a long wait and see. But maybe that doesn't really fundamentally change the practicality of your suggestion- especially since an extra year plus is the longest it would likely be.
Its not at all inconceivable that we could go through 2010 AND 2011 without an election.
I personally don't see the balance of forces changing- because its so hard for the Conservatives to get the extra mile of being confident of getting a majority.
By late 2011 they could just call an election without blowback, making it more likely they would succeed, so I can see by then that it will just happen any time. But very likely, not before then.
That would be a long wait and see. But maybe that doesn't really fundamentally change the practicality of your suggestion- especially since an extra year plus is the longest it would likely be.
I disagree with the last anon. The pool of donors is close to i nfinite for our purposes. 30mm plus Canadians. It's the height of arrogance to assume that green donors are some kind of captive cash flow, and the Party apparatchiks are the gate keepers for that flow. I know for a fact that thousands of current and past Greens would open their wallets for a leadership, wheras they are not enchanted enough with the current circumstances to donate.
Leadership race donations can be segregated from the Party accounts, so any contributions can still be structured so as not to affect contribution room for the GPC.
And, aside from all assertions about desirability of this or that option, our constitution stipulates the 4 year mandate. Plain and simple. Implementing is only as tough as we make it.
Take a deep breath BGB, "arrogance" is a tad strong and how you reach "captive cash flow" from my post is beyond me, however. even with 30 million Canadians the pool is finite.
The reality is that not all Canadians will give to a political party, some of these will only give to one and some only to the GPC.
Yes, the GPC should grow its donor base.
The issue for me is whether the fundraising for leadership aspirants should occur before or after the next election.
Above I proposed a simple means to deal with both the constitution and the desire of some (many) party members to replace the present leader.
Obviously, my idea requires the cooperation of the present leader.
(repeated)
I say.....
My court case starts Jan 4 2010
In it Dan Grice confirms the green party said "I WAS AN ANTISEMITIC".
Ms May does perjure herself with comments with the CJC.
Proof of a total disregard to our constitution and rules will be shown.
Malicious lies are exposed and damage will result.
Ms May if she looses will not be winning a new mandate in my view.
And she should lose if truth and proof matter.
Our august convention can be something that gets us firmly back on track as the green party and remove the last remnants of the E May party......something I would like to see happen.
If we again break our constitution over our own fears soon thrown on us by May sycophants about replacing her I can tell you all we will not get any where near the support we had in the 2008 election.
I do not wish to prove it but know it because of the people I work with.
I am in contact with many and the feeling is that E May is not trustworthy and only about herself and the peddling of her own books.
She conveniently broke a very big promise to a very big group by her ignoring the crime issue talks in the debates we got her in.
I also see a big scam coming up to stop any such talk of a leadership review.
I hope there are real greens around to help me after I attempt to clear my previously good name in court and say again what I am doing is way over due and in my mind going to help us in the future.
All of you know really how stupid only targeting conservative seats really is.
All of you know how silly it was to run against Mckay.
All of you know E May said to vote strategically.
All of you know much more as well.
We and our blindness are fast making us irrelevant and we have only our selves to blame.
One million voters were counting on us and we are still betraying all of them.
They want honest...open... uncorrupted representation and I do not blame them....sadly most of you do not even pay attention to our internal struggles and live in a fantasy world of voters.
I am still hopeful we can all get much smarter much faster.
Please do not let a leadership contest slide as you will kill whats left of this party!!!
cheers
I posted this in another thread and think it should be here as well
There is absolutely zero to fear with our holding a leadership contest...ZERO !!!
Post a Comment