I copied my last blog article about the deal between Elizabeth and Stéphane Dion over to the blog section on the GPC website and there has been a lot of good discussion about it over there.  Here is the link for those who are interested.

Now that the initial hubbub has died down a little I wanted to post a few follow-up thoughts about the deal and my original blog.  Some of you may have read an article about the deal titled "'Why, Elizabeth, why?"  A bad week to be a lefty" by Patricia Robertson in last weekend's Globe and Mail.  (It's behind the G&M firewall so I can't provide a link)   I'm quoted in the article and I'll get to that in a moment, but first a short synopsis.

One of the key points made by Ms. Robertson is that the Greens would have been better off if we had forged an alliance with the NDP rather than the Liberals.  Since we didn't, she believes that Elizabeth's chances of becoming Prime Minister some day, or even winning her seat in this election is now "an impossible dream."  Ms. Robertson then follows up with the following:

"In fact, we'll have to see if [Elizabeth] even continues to carry the Green banner after the next election."

"Party member Kevin Colton, in his online blog this week, accused Ms. May of poor leadership.  He said he opposes the Dion deal and has misgivings about his party's electoral prospects.  'Despite our best efforts," he said, "there is a very real chance that in the upcoming election that GPC will again elect no candidates under first-past-the-post."

There are a few points to make about this quote and the context in which it was presented.  In no particular order:

First, I disagree with the conclusion that it would have been better to forge an alliance with the NDP.  I've written against this proposal in the past.  The GPC is not by nature a left-wing party, and I think this assumption is part of the reason why some of the conclusions drawn by Ms. Robertson are over-stated.

Second, in no way do I doubt that Elizabeth will continue to carry the Green banner after the next election, regardless of how it turns out, if she so chooses.  Jim Harris was the right leader at a time when the party needed his vision and professional skills, and Elizabeth is the right leader for the party right now when it can capitalize on her charisma, dynamism and long-standing commitment to addressing environmental concerns.

Third, I did not accuse Elizabeth of poor leadership.  I did say she made a mistake and I hope that both she and readers will see this distinction.  Making no mistakes is an impossible standard and no-one should be held to that standard.

Fourth, I do believe the mistake was fairly serious.  However, it is not nearly serious enough that it might prevent a Green Prime Minister from ever being elected.  When I wrote my essay on how the GPC could win Parliament by 2020 I expected there would be growing pains like this, and that would lead to slower growth than some in the party might like to see.  But in the bigger picture of long-term goals and objectives the strength of our values and policies will help to minimize the impact of any given decision like this deal.

Fifth, my comments about the possibility of not electing candidates are presented out of context.  Elsewhere in my article I state that I believe it is almost certain that we will elect someone by the end of the decade.  I also mention that the deal would marginally increase the chances of Elizabeth's election in Central Nova, not decrease them. The possibility of not electing candidates was intended to illustrate the best strategy to compensate for the vagaries of first-past-the-post over the next four or five years.  I do not believe the deal will harm our chances of electing someone in this or a future election under first-past-the-post.  In fact, I continue to believe it is possible to for the GPC to win Parliament by 2020 under any electoral system.

Having said all that, I'm sure my concerns with this single quote would pale next to Elizabeth's frustration about how the deal as a whole was interpreted vs how it was intended.  But, nevertheless, I'll try to draw a few preliminary conclusions from this discussion.

First, many supporters of the deal have noted that it is a good example of what the Green Party means when it says it does politics differently.  I agree that this was a good intention.  I also think that the response to my blog provides another example of how we do politics differently.  On the one hand, we have the Conservatives (and the other parties, perhaps to a lesser extent) exercising message control amongst their caucus to the fullest of their abilities.  On the other hand, as a party member I'm able to openly criticize a party decision on the party's own public website.

As far as I can determine none of the other major parties are doing anything close to this and I think there is going to be a big payoff to this sort of open discussion in a few years.  We are setting up a framework to better engage and activate our members and that in turn will allow us to identify solutions for issues and corrections to problems much faster than the other parties.  Not to mention that if and when the other parties decide to give this sort of open discussion a try they will be years behind the GPC when it comes to figuring out how to make it work.

I can attest that there is a huge buy-in to this new way of doing politics.  Not a single member who responded to my post on the GPC blog commented that I shouldn't have made the post.

My second conclusion, an extension of the first, is that people will take what they want from your comments.  Ms. Robertson saw what she considered a good quote and she ran with it.  One response to this might be to try to avoid saying things that are critical.  But much of today's media coverage is driven by conflict.  If a quote that illustrates conflict isn't readily available then I think many in the media will keep looking for another disgruntled member or another divisive topic.

I think that when political observers see disagreements they often tend to view them through the traditional media prism of unhealthy conflict.  Many voters are tired of this perspective, but at the same time working to make things better sometimes means that it is healthy to air concerns and respectfully disagree.  Elizabeth is forthright about issues and it is clear that voters respond positively and find her refreshing.  I think the key is to try to strike the right balance.  I've read that a in a healthy relationship there should be eight positive comments for every disagreement.  That ratio might be a little pollyanna-ish when talking politics, but I've tried to keep the spirit of that suggestion in mind when I offer opinions on my blog or by email.

My third conclusion is our detractors will always try to make internal disagreements like this into more than they actually are.  This happened in the last election as well.  But over time, if we don't respond in a knee-jerk kind of way, I think most voters will see through the rhetoric and will appreciate the way we are trying to do politics differently.  Real change takes more than sound bites and I think that once voters get past the surface messaging in the media and learn in some detail about our ideas they will buy in for the long term.  I think the steady rise in our core support over the past few years is a good proof of this.

Elizabeth, keep up the great work.  Despite my misgivings I continue to hope that your plan works out.