Comments on: Elizabeth May Leadership Term To Be Extended?

By: John Ogilvie

John Ogilvie — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:27:12 +0000

Peter, I served on council with EM. She was kind enough to attend my nomination meeting uninvited and torpedo me because I had been a critic on council.

Greg served as Campaign Committee chair and may tell his story sometime.

“Personality over policy” pretty much defines the GPC at this time – wake up.

By: who

who — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:21:03 +0000

I am a fervant believer in Green Principles and a passionate advocate for a new era of politics, which does not emphasize personality over policy.

I believe no one else in Alberta was willing to be on the council.

Thank you for your support

By: Greg Morrow

Greg Morrow — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 14:36:38 +0000

Not sure about others but I for one did not suggest EM is interested in hanging onto power; indeed, I said specifically “please note I am not saying that Ms May is desperately seeking to hold onto power, only that changing the rules to extend her term sends that kind of message.” You would do well to read more carefully, Peter.

By: Peter johnston

Peter johnston — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 05:21:31 +0000

You guys have NO idea who EM is or what her motivations are. If you think Elizabeth is interested in hanging onto power you are way off base.I presume one or several of you will put yourselves forward for the leadership position when she decides that she has had enough of this backstabbing from so called Greens.

By: Darwin O'Connor

Darwin O'Connor — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:25:48 +0000

I believe the NDP council delayed the constitutionally mandated biannual convention that was supposed to be held in 2005 to 2006 because of fear it may have conflicted with an election. People questioned it at the time.

We seem to be in a period of long term minority government and unpredictable elections so delaying a convention is pointless. It’s probably best to schedule it and hope for the best.

By: Greg Morrow

Greg Morrow — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:49:54 +0000

@Peter: criticizing a bad idea doesn’t mean I’m “trashing the GPC”. Don’t be so insecure. I’m just saying it’s a terrible idea to unconstitutionally extend EM’s term mid-stream. Surely Council has the political sense to understand how that looks. Members elected EM in Aug 2006 with the understanding she would serve a 4-yr term. How would you react if Harper got a majority then mid-term proposed legislation that would extend his 5-yr maximum term? If EM wants to stand for re-election in Aug 2010, great (and I have no doubt she would win). If you want to change the constitution do so at the Toronto BGM (as called for by the constitution) so members can fully participate in the debate. That way, if EM wins re-election, she has a new mandate under the new rules, and there can be no doubt about the legitimacy of that mandate (but doing it unconstitutionally will call into question the extended term’s legitimacy).

There is more going on here than you are willing to admit (at least publicly); this idea is being pushed by potential leadership candidates jockeying for position who fear they will have to wait another 4 yrs if the change isn’t pushed through before Aug 2010 and who don’t want to run for the position if they have to stand for re-election every 4 yrs (since they are used to a leader-for-life situation).

This isn’t part of a contingency plan; Council can make contingency plans without changing the constitution for Pete’s sake (which Council can’t do anyway, this must be done by majority vote at a BGM, not a mail-in ballot, not a special meeting). Just plan for the Aug 2010 leadership contest as called for by the constitution and, in the highly unlikely event there is an Aug election (note: 97.5% of Canadian election have *NOT* been in Aug), you suspend the leadership race and conclude it in the months thereafter, thus getting it done before the end of 2010.

(for those who don’t know, Peter is the GPC AB Councilor.)

By: Stuart Hertzog

Stuart Hertzog — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:23:40 +0000

Disturbing news indeed, but no surprise to those Greens who have been watching the slow erosion of democratic process within the Green Party by Elizabeth May and her unquestioning supporters.

The party’s federal Council has become irrelevant since the May-dominated Campaign Committee assumed full power over party activities. I’ve written about this on my blog greenpolitics.ca.

This Green Politburo has no intention of ever permitting the rank-and-file to replace Ms. May.

Unfortunately, the Green Party of Canada has been turned into an election machine to enable Ms May achieve her ambition, which is to retire on the west coast of Canada with an MP or — better still — a senator’s pension.

By: Peter johnston

Peter johnston — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:11:20 +0000

You say yourself that it would be prudent to have a contingency plan in the case of an election being called during the leadership race. That is what is going on here. It behoves the CC to discuss all eventualities and report to Council what are the various possibilities. This blog is way premature and is an example of what happens when someone on council seems to think that council’s work should be carried out on public list serves and blogs. The result is an array of assumptions and baseless accusations. Wouldn’t your time be better spent trashing the Parties that are wrecking the Planet instead of the one Party that is trying to save it.

By: Mark Francis

Mark Francis — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:34:24 +0000

Heck, it was easily demonstrated that the new GPC constitution was unconstitutionally adopted. LOL.

Of course the leadership contest should happen.

It has been said that the GPC constitution needs to be more robust about things like this. The leadership should be by mail-in ballot. And more meetings and policy needs to be done online.