Columnist Chris Selley at Macleans has picked up on an incorrect meme from Richard Warnica at the Tyee that the Greens are "on the left" of the NDP:

Here is Macleans:

But as Vancouver's The Tyee pointed out last week in an interview with Layton, his party now finds itself surrounded by green. On its right, the theoretically rejuvenated Liberals are led by a man who named his dog after a climate change accord; on the left there is Elizabeth May's suddenly relevant Green Party, ready and apparently able to cherry-pick left-leaning votes.

And here is the Tyee:

On Layton's right is Stephane Dion. The long-shot former Liberal cabinet minister wrapped himself in green before marching to the head of his party in December. Now he can't make a public appearance without flaunting his dog Kyoto, and showing off his enviro chops. On Layton's left is Elizabeth May, the leader of the Green. The party has great brand recognition to go with its growing profile as the go to party on the greenhouse file.

It's been said many times before, but it bears repeating:  the Greens are socially liberal (e.g. on the left) and fiscally conservative (e.g. on the right).  We are far from being to the left of the NDP on most issues, and in fact we are regularly criticized by our own left-leaning members for being too far to the right.  Furthermore, our environmental principles pervade everything we do in a way that transcends traditional political left-right categorizations. 

I understand that reporters don't always have the space to get these points across, but I think that simplifying things to the point of saying that the Greens are "on the left" of the NDP is inaccurate and confusing to both readers and voters.  So, a friendly request to Chris and Richard:  please consider the above points when you characterize the Greens in future articles.

MINOR UPDATE:  Changed "fiscally responsible" to "fiscally conservative" to better make the point I intended to make.

The departure of MP Wajid Khan from the Liberals to the Conservatives has left the NDP holding the balance of power in Parliament:

Khan's move across the floor gives the Tories 125 seats, leaving the Liberals with 101. The minority government would now need the support of 29 opposition MPs — the same number the NDP has — to pass legislation in the 308-seat Parliament.

So, let's revisit the promise in the article I linked to in my last blog post:

Updated Tue. Dec. 27 2005 5:47 PM ET  Canadian Press  OTTAWA -- Should Jack Layton's New Democrats hold the balance of power after election night, the price for its support is sure to include a move to a new voting system - one that could give Canadians a steady string of minority governments. ... "I don't want to be two votes short," again, Layton said recently. "I want us to have the ability to achieve what we came here to do. . .and proportional representation will be a big part of any discussion."

Is the time now right for pro-rep, Mr. Layton?

I see that Murray Dobbin closed out 2006 with another article about why Canadians should vote for the NDP. Fair enough. But Dobbin revisits some of his long-discredited arguments about the NDP relationship with the Green Party:

[The NDP] could propose a deal that would see Greens withdraw from winnable NDP seats in return for bowing out of Elizabeth May's Nova Scotia riding and pledging to make proportional representation a key plank in its platform. That would avoid the 2004 scenario where Green support defeated seven NDP candidates and elected Conservatives instead. There might be no deal to be made, but it needs to be tried.

There are enough invalid assumptions and arguments in this one paragraph that I'll respond to them one by one.

It could propose a deal that would see Greens withdraw from winnable NDP seats in return for bowing out of Elizabeth May's Nova Scotia riding

The Green Party and the NDP are two separate parties with distinct platforms and ideas. Canadians have a right to review both platforms and vote for either party as they see fit. It is undemocratic to support a backroom deal that would deny some Canadians this right, and it seems most likely that voters would turn against both parties if such a deal was struck.

Also, the idea that multiple Green candidates would need to be withdrawn in return for the withdrawal of a single NDP candidate shows that Dobbin's proposal can't be taken seriously. The Greens are within striking distance of the NDP in many national polls, and the NDP finished third with only 20% in the Cape Breton--Canso riding where Elizabeth is most likely to run.

and pledging to make proportional representation a key plank in its platform.

This has been a key plank of the NDP for the last two elections:

In an interview with The Canadian Press, Layton's eyes shone at the prospect of moving the country towards a voting system of proportional representation. That was key party issue in the 2004 campaign, but was pushed aside when the NDP came up two seats short of holding a real balance of power in the last Parliament.

Despite being a key plank, the NDP has never made any serious attempt to move forward the idea of proportional representation. If the issue was really important to a party with elected MPs then there are many concrete actions those MPs could take to move things along.  But in practice, the NDP uses the pro-rep argument to make political hay while ignoring the clearly identified need for electoral reform. The Greens have every reason to believe that the NDP would find another reason to not follow up on any promises about pro-rep, should it suit the NDP's political calculations after the election.

That would avoid the 2004 scenario where Green support defeated seven NDP candidates and elected Conservatives instead.

As I outlined here and here it is unlikely that support for Green candidates caused any NDP candidates to lose their elections.

When I read Dobbin's articles I keep thinking that he and the NDP leadership in general can't see the forest for the trees. As much as anything, it is the raw political calculations, empty promises and manipulation of facts that is causing Canadians to tire of the NDP and the other "grey" parties and move their support to the Greens. They see in us an opportunity to start anew, with a focus on making things better for everyone rather than making things better for a specific interest group, whether that group be business or labour. It will be a lot of work to follow through on these expectations, but we are getting more help by the day.

As mentioned in an earlier post the GPC has started an online petition for Canadians who want to try to ensure that Elizabeth May is included in the Leaders' debate in the next federal election.  A couple of days ago I read the first editorial I've seen supporting Elizabeth's inclusion in the Winnipeg Sun.  I'm sure there will be more, but here is the comment that caught my eye:

It is no longer fair, or even rational, to keep treating the Greens as a fringe party.

The point I wanted to make is that rationality is often in the eye of the beholder.  If the criteria for making a rational decision on who gets included in the debate is an objective answer to the question "What is best for Canada and Canadians?", then clearly the Sun's analysis of the issue makes sense.  The Greens should be included in the debate.

However, the individuals on the broadcast consortium that have decided to exclude the Greens from the last two debates have done so on "editorial" grounds.  This is because the question they are trying to answer is not the one being asked by the Sun.  Rather, they are asking "What is best for the interests I represent?"  So, to understand the reasoning behind the exclusion of the Greens, one needs to understand the point of view of the individuals making the decision.  When the decision is examined from that point of view it starts to become more clear.

The first reason that could explain the decision is that the individuals representing the consortium members (e.g. the CBC, Global, CTV, Radio Canada, and TVA) support other parties.  Consider the following:  In 2004 Peter Kent was the consortium representative for Global.  In the 2006 election he ran as a candidate for the Conservative Party in Toronto.  If Peter Kent supported the Conservatives in 2004, then a rational decision for Mr. Kent would have been to exclude the Greens.  It is almost certain that including us would be to the detriment of the other parties in both the short term and in the long term.

A second, and more subtle reason to exclude the Greens is what is referred to in the technology industry as a "disruption" of the status quo.  Here is the first sentence in the Wikipedia definition on disruptive technologies:

A disruptive technology or disruptive innovation is a technological innovation, product, or service that eventually overturns the existing dominant technology or product in the market.

I believe that same concept can be applied to the rising influence of the Green Party on the Canadian federal political scene.  We are a disruptive "product," and I think it is entirely possible that we will overturn the existing dominant "products" by winning Parliament at some point in the not-too-distant future. 

The problem with this disruption is that the dynamics of the existing political marketplace are well understood by the media, business, the non-political parts of government and so on.  Once we start electing MPs we are going to change this dynamic in ways that are unpredictable.  The individuals who are making the consortium decisions have risen to a level of seniority based on their understanding of the existing political model.  Successful media and business organizations have become successful within the existing model.  As such, it is rational for them to try to minimize the potential disruptive force to this model that the Greens represent.  One way to do this is to try to slow us down by minimizing public understanding of our "product".

Needless to say, I think that the best interests of Canadians should come ahead of the best interest of media organizations when it comes to our federal elections. But so long as the decision about who to include in the debate is based on subjectively rational grounds rather than, say, objective and measurable grounds, then there will be no guarantee that the Greens or other new parties will ever be included in a Leaders' debate.  It may take a change in Canada's Elections Act to fix the problem.

The Toronto Star published an interesting article on Saturday that analyzes some of the long-term dynamics at play in terms of the response of Canadian voters and political parties to environmental issues.  Some good quotes:

If the Conservatives repeat past form, these measures [environment-related initiatives] will be mostly spin and little substance.

Other polls suggest 90 per cent of Canadians have some level of concern about climate change, and 71 per cent think Ottawa's approach is inadequate.

"What really drives people's concerns about the environment is not the incidents themselves but the sense that governments and industry aren't doing anything about them," McAllister says. "As they perceive (those in power) are not acting, they got pissed off."

I recommend giving the whole article a read ...

It seems like reporter Dennis Bueckert is continuing to wish the Green Party the worst.  In a CP article published yesterday he interviews pollster Bruce Anderson about the impact of the election of new Liberal leader Stephane Dion.  Here's the money quote:

"This is probably the worst outcome for the Green Party."

To Bueckert's credit, he follows up with comments from David Chernushenko, who describes Dion's victory as fantastic. 

I'm in agreement with David.  It doesn't really matter how environmental matters get addressed, just so long as they do.  It is likely that Dion will need our help to make progress, and we should be glad to give it to him.  I think that most Green Party members feel the same way.  This is true not only on environmental issues, but on any issue in our entire platform.  Memo to other parties:  steal our policies, please.

I think Canadians are starting to learn that this altruism is at the heart of the party and that is why we are attracting new members and supporters.  The national political mindset is shifting and our vote totals will continue to increase as a result.  Yes, we will work with other parties.  But Canadians will also recognize that, since we were leading the way to begin with, why work through intermediaries like Dion?  They'll start electing our candidates directly.

Anderson and others who base their analyses only on traditional political calculations need to re-evaluate.

UPDATE:  As explained above I disagree with the premise that the election of Dion will negatively affect our chances in the long term, and Elizabeth May shows how to make things work in the short term.

Here are the links for those interested in the dozens of new policy resolutions passed by the GPC membership at our convention in Ottawa last month:  [pdf]  [doc].  Here is the link for our new constitution:  [link].  And here is a link to CPAC coverage of the GPC convention and leadership debates:  [link].

Need more evidence that the impact of the Green Party in Canadian politics is continuing to grow?  Check out this Toronto Star article:  [link].  Liberal leadership candidate Stephane Dion mentions the Greens (and, indirectly, Elizabeth May) in the second sentence of his opening remarks, which preface a 3000-word Q&A with the Star editorial board.

Tom Axworthy has written an excellent article in the Toronto Star about why the Greens should be invited to the political table.  Here is the link.

In their September 1 issue Maclean's quotes Elizabeth May as saying she is confident that David Suzuki will run for the Greens in the next election [link].  That would certainly be a coup of the highest order, and if anyone can pull it off I think it would be Elizabeth (she is a close friend of his).  My understanding is that David has been repeatedly asked by various Green Parties to run for office and has always declined.  David was the keynote speaker at our 2004 General Meeting in Bragg Creek, Alberta (near Calgary) and brought down the house with an inspirational speech.  David - Please tell us now is the time you will take this next step!

Here is another article from rabble with some suggestions that would be great for the NDP and terrible for the GPC.  Duncan Cameron states the following in the article:

Working outside Parliament the Green Party is not going to set the agenda for public policy. In elections to come it will continue to be a spoiler, serving to enhance the chances of electing MP's hostile to its cause.

If the NDP lived up to its commitment to push for electoral reform then it would not be necessary for the Greens to work outside of Parliament.  In many countries Greens have started achieving many of their goals with the level of support equivalent to the GPC in Canada.  It is the first-past-the-post system that is the problem, not the strategy of the GPC to run candidates.  With proportional representation the GPC would already have 13 or 14 MPs (4.5% x 308 ridings). 

As I outline in this essay I think we will be able to win Parliament in the long term and I suspect supporters of other parties are starting to wake up to that fact.  It isn't a surprise to me that we are hearing suggestions from NDP supporters that we should merge, not run candidates, etc.

However, there is a role for the Green Party. Should Elizabeth May take on a unite-the-left strategy, by creating a Green Democratic coalition with Jack Layton, then we could see a Green agenda in Parliament that would lead rather than lag behind public opinion on issues such as climate change.

As I outline here the GPC does not draw it's votes exclusively or even primarily from left-leaning voters, which means it is not a party of the left.  A unite-the-left strategy should take that into account!  Green Party supporters are not wayward NDP voters and we have an important and unique voice to offer Canadian politics.  It would be beneficial for Canadians if the NDP and other parties started working for the electoral reform that was proposed to Parliament by the Law Commission of Canada years ago and is now long overdue (more in my next post).

 

In my last posting I analyzed parts of Murray Dobbin's recent article about the GPC. In the article Dobbin stated that running a Green in every riding helps elect Conservatives and defeat NDPers.

On the surface this contention does not seem accurate to me, especially given the bashing the Greens take from some NDP supporters for being too right-wing. Reviewing the many differences between NDP and Green platforms is probably enough for many to understand that Green voters are not primarily wayward NDP voters. But let's consider the facts for those who want more support for the contention that Green Parties draw voters from across the political spectrum.

To start, consider this poll done prior to the May 2001 provincial election in BC.  The Green Party of BC jumped to 12% in that election and the poll shows that they weren't pulling their support exclusively from the NDP. Here is the relevant quote on page 8:

Green Party voters – the "softest" support of the three main parties – are split between the BC Liberals and the NDP as their second choice. Twenty-seven percent would vote BC Liberal as their second choice and 24% would vote NDP. A further 12% of Green Party voters say their second choice would be Unity BC. Thirty percent of Green Party voters are uncommitted to a second choice party.

The BC Liberals are right-wing and the Unity BC party is very right-wing. So the second-choice split is 39% right, 24% left, and 30% uncommitted.

I have also seen a 2002 Ipsos poll on BC provincial politics that showed that 44% of Greens would vote NDP as their second choice, 15% would vote Liberal and 15% Unity (30% on the right) and 22% are undecided. But this poll was done at a time when many people were angry at the Liberals over the right-wing policies they were implementing in BC and I think that partly explains why second-choice NDP support jumped from only 24% in May 2001.

I haven't seen any polls that provide this detailed breakdown federally. However pages 11 and 12 of this poll released shortly before the June 2004 election shows that second-choice support is not high for any given party - the NDP is the highest at 18% but the Greens aren't that far behind at 11%. The previous week the numbers were 24% for the NDP and 18% for the Greens:

All in all it is just not clear that our votes would go to the NDP if the Greens weren't running and it is time to put that tired meme to rest. My rough estimate based on the BC polls and from talking to our supporters is that we get 1/3 of our votes from the right, 1/3 from the left and 1/3 from voters who would not otherwise vote.  We need to do some get-out-the-vote work for the non-voting group to help bring our election day results closer to our pre- and post-election polling results.

Neither left nor right, but forward.

Murray Dobbin has written another piece about the Green Party and I wanted to respond to a few of his comments. The focus of the article is on Elizabeth May and I think the Green Party is lucky to have high quality individuals such as her and David Chernushenko running for our leadership. But I'm going to focus my comments below on some of the subtext in the article.

Jim Harris, the corporate inspirational speaker who has led the party through a controversial three years of ups and downs has announced he will step down after a poor showing the last election.

As I outline in this article I don't think the Greens did poorly in the last election. And the party has polled has high as 9% in recent weeks - we clearly still have momentum.  Moreover, Harris did not state that he decided to step down because the party did poorly - here is his speech with his thoughts on the matter. But Dobbin has presented the information in a way that might make a reader believe that Harris said the party did poorly, and this is incorrect.

Despite the funding, the party received just 4.5 per cent of the vote in the recent election.

We increased our vote total by 80,000 in the 2006 election, an increase of 14.4% from 2004. I think a more relevant number than the 4.5% is how much it cost to win a vote. Even with the funding the Greens spent several times less than the other major parties to win each vote. In 2004 the number was $0.86 per vote for the GPC and $5.66 per vote for the NDP. The GPC is much more effective than other parties at converting the funding we have available into votes at the polls.

It is here that the biggest unknown hangs over a redirected Green Party. While May would probably not replicate Harris's approach of running in every seat — in the process helping elect Conservatives and defeat NDPers — she will minimally want a seat in the House of Commons for herself. Would the NDP, in return for the Greens avoiding ridings where the NDP has a chance, facilitate her election by not running against her?

If not, the NDP could face a more serious dilemma. If Jack Layton's strategy is to replace the Liberals as the official opposition, the temptation for the Greens to replace the NDP as the progressive alternative might prove to be irresistible.

The strategy and accommodations suggested by Dobbin would do everything to help the NDP and nothing to help the Greens. They were tried in a Vancouver election a few years back and did not work. In the long run not running candidates for "strategic" reasons will also reinforce a perception in the public that we are opportunistic and are not serious about getting elected.

Running 308 candidates and giving every Canadian a chance to vote Green and understand our policies is essential to our success. We have run 308 twice - I coordinated the team that did so the first time - and I know we have the institutional capacity to do so again. Our new leader can set new priorities for the party in addition to running 308 candidates.

It is also incorrect to imply that Green voters are helping elect Conservatives and defeat NDPers. I'll write a separate blog article on that topic.

Recently an article was written by Canadian Press reporter Dennis Bueckert about Elizabeth May's possible entry into the GPC leadership race. Although I don't know her, Ms. May has an impressive array of credentials and I think her entry into the race would further raise awareness about the party and solidify our standing as the fourth national party and a force to be reckoned with.

The point of this blog article isn't to discuss the leadership race but the reporting of Dennis Bueckert. During the January election Mr. Bueckert wrote a number of articles in the same style as the one about Ms. May. I feel his reporting is somewhat biased against the GPC. Consider the first paragraph in his article:
   more »