It Isn't Easy Being The First Green
Well folks, I can honestly say I didn't see this one coming. Today the Greens have stolen the Canadian political spotlight, even if it's only for a day. Here is what cbc.ca has reported:
"The Green party has gained its first ever member of Parliament — Blair Wilson — a Vancouver-area Independent who quit the Liberal party last year. Green party Leader Elizabeth May introduced Wilson at a news conference Saturday morning in Ottawa.Yep, this is quite the turn of events, so where to begin with this? Well, first I guess a congrats is in order to the long-suffering Greens for getting your first MP, regardless of how it happened. Mr. Wilson, despite his past and the fact that the Liberals obviously didn't want him back, made a choice that took some guts. During the news conference, one of the reporters asked Ms. May who initiated this, to which she stated something along the lines of that she doesn't poach MP's or other party members. She said that she has had conversations with others in the past, but has always insisted on saying to those members that they should work things out in their own parties. Speaking from personal experience, I can say that she was being completely honest in that regard so despite his reasons for approaching them, I feel pretty safe in saying that it was Mr. Wilson who initiated this and not Ms. May.The MP for the West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country riding was turfed from the Liberal caucus last year after allegations of spending irregularities in his 2006 campaign. Wilson reminded reporters that he was cleared of any wrongdoing after an eight-month investigation by Elections Canada.
May said her party welcomes the MP because he gives the Greens a voice in parliamentary debates. She also said having Wilson on her team means she should be allowed to take part in the televised leaders debate in the next federal election campaign."
In taking on Mr. Wilson though, one has to wonder about the optics. Yes Mr. Wilson had issues with Elections Canada and while he was cleared, his name isn't exactly clean as can be. On the upside, at least Mr. Wilson can say that he stepped aside from the Liberal caucus to "do the right thing" while he was being investigated. That's something that will work in his favour. But some will argue that Mr. Wilson became the first Green MP out of a lack of options, not out of principle. Mr. Wilson himself even admitted that he didn't go this way until the options to return to the Liberal fold were completely gone.
One also must wonder about the timing of this move by Mr. Wilson. The fact is that this supposedly only came together over the past couple of weeks, long after the current election speculation and threats started. Did this have more to do with not running as an Independent? Would Mr. Wilson have made this jump if there wasn't going to be an election for another year? Obviously we'll never know the answers to those questions, but they are fair to ask given the circumstances. Mr. Wilson obviously wants to win in the next election, and I guess his chances are better as a Green than as an Independent.
The timing of this is also interesting given the Greens attempts to get into the televised leaders debates. A couple bloggers today are calling this move into question and hinting that it betrays the Greens calls for democratic reform. I personally won't go that far, but I have to admit that I do feel uneasy about the fact that the people never elected Mr. Wilson as a Green in the exact same way I would any other MP crossing the floor. As for the debate, this creates a never scenario we've never seen before, because we've never had a floor crossing determine if someone gets into the Leaders Debate. Yes, we have had the "one seat" threshold in place, but in the past those "one seaters" were elected as such, didn't cross the floor to join that party. Plus, when you add in the fact that given Mr. Harper's bullheaded desire to have this election, Mr. Wilson may never actually get to sit in the House of Commons as a Green, it makes things all the more murky. Also, one has to wonder if he can even win as a Green, which makes this all the more interesting.
With all this, I guarantee that someone in the comments section will ask the question "Do you believe the Greens should be in those debates?", so let me try to put that one to bed right now. I can't help but agree with Pogge's assessment of this situation to a degree. I have a real problem with someone being on that stage who's there admitting that their not there to win and that they are saying that someone else should be Prime Minister. It would be in essence having two Liberals up there, which doesn't seem fair to me. I know that's something that my Liberal friends won't have an issue with because Mr. Dion will just paint Ms. May as "too radical" and use that to paint is plan as more moderate. Also, it does feel unsettling to me to have the Greens in this debate simply because of a floor crossing, especially one that happened so late in the game. If Mr. Wilson had switched, lets say, 3 months ago, I wouldn't have this issue but it just happened today with a general election probably coming within days. To me, putting Ms. May into this debate this way could very well set a precedent that might push other smaller parties to try to coax just one MP to jump to them to get them into a debate. That might be "the slippery slope" argument, but precedent is precedent.
At the end of it though, if the television networks decide to let Ms. May in at this point, I won't fight it. I won't fight it simply because if the Greens get in like this, it won't look as good on them but that's their choice to make. Also, I relish seeing Jack Layton taking on the Liberal A and Liberal B candidates because he has a record that he can stand on and a good plan. I'm confident in the NDP's platform and I have no problem putting it up against anyone elses. The Liberals are going to have to defend their plan and their record of abstaining and the Greens, well, they won't be able to point to a voting record in Parliament because even with Mr. Wilson's defection, they still don't have one. They'll only get that if they manage to elect someone this time. So while I say a hearty congrats to the Greens out there, I just hope that they realize that while they have their first MP, they haven't elected their first MP yet. When that day comes, I'll have a heartier congrats for you.Recommend this Post
Posts
22 comments:
"I have a real problem with someone being on that stage who's there admitting that their not there to win and that they are saying that someone else should be Prime Minister."
That's the difference between Jack and Elizabeth (and some of their supporters). One is delusional, one isn't.
I don't know what Adrienne Carr and Dan Grice think about having a defrocked Grit running for their party, one who had a dubious reputation.
If Blair Wilson wins, he wins by fixing potholes not by promoting Green ideology.
It seems that Mr. B. Wilson does not respect the rights of employees. How very socially conscious is this Green MP?
From his Wikipedia bio page.
"The Province's article alleged that Wilson and his wife were subject to Social Services Tax Act liens on three properties and owe $2.1 million in bank mortgages, that Wilson misled the media about the true extent of his business success, exaggerating the number of restaurants he founded and claiming to have sold an accountancy business his in-laws claim closed, among other discrepancies, and that when Wilson's two restaurants, Mahoneys and Wilson's Steakhouse, closed, he was taken twice to the B.C. Employment Standards Tribunal for refusing to pay employees, was sued twice for failing to pay contractors, was twice compelled by the courts to pay GST owing, and was also taken to court by a supplier over $33,839 that was owed (this amount was later paid)."
It's not the Elections Canada charges that were the major issue, although it should be noted he was cleared of all of them, he did admit to three violations. But it was his business history, and long list of legal disputes, all of which he failed to disclose to the party, that led to the decision not to re-admit him into caucus.
I'm glad to see the Greens have an MP. I'm happy this means May should be in the debates. But there's a reason why the Liberals booted Blair Wilson and wouldn't take him back. I just hope May doesn't end-up with buyer's remorse. Because for a party with the democratic and ethical commitment of the Greens, they couldn't have picked a worse poster-child.
*sorry, that should be was NOT cleared of all of them.
The Government agrees with you Cam.
via: Aaron Wherry
“Our view is that there should only be one Liberal candidate in the leaders’ debate. We have an electoral agreement between Mr. Dion and Ms. May, an agreement for co-operation, and she has personally stated that he is her choice for prime minister. So Mr. Dion must stand on his own in the debates. Either Ms. May is in the debate or Mr. Dion is in the debate. But they can’t have both.”
I can understand why the NDP wouldn't want May in the debates. Jack Layton was looking forward to tag teaming with Harper over Dion's Carbon tax proposel.
Shrewd move by Elizabeth May.
The Bloc Quebecois were allowed into the 1993 debate and they didn’t have a single member elected as a BQ candidate - they all crossed the floor, except Gilles Duceppe who ran as an independent as the Bloc had not been registered by Elections Canada when he ran.
Whooee! The CheeseHat is in the debates. There is absolutely zero chance the BQ will form a government. They only run candidates in 70-odd ridings and only in Quebec. Duceppe is not running for PM. Yet, he gets into the debates every time.
In 2006, 650,000 Canadians across the country voted for the Green Party. The Greens got votes in every single riding in Canada. Public opinion polls have indicated that GPC support has risen significantly since 2006.
Elizabeth May went to the handful of high powered corporate media executives that run the TV debates and appealed to their sense of democratic fairness. She told them about the 650,000 voters who support the GPC. She told them about the opinion polls that showed the Greens ahead of the BQ. She told them that the GPC is a truly national party and not a regional party. She told them that the GPC stands for a united Canada and is not a buncha separatists.
They said that wasn't enough. What these corporate bigwigs demanded was a sitting MP. Elizabeth asked them to show her the rulebook so that she could play by their rules, unfair as they might be. They told her there is no rulebook. No written rules, at all. The rules are made up arbitrarily as the media moguls see fit and can be changed whenever they want. They made it clear that they own the airwaves and they will be the ones to determine who gets on the stage for the most important and highest visibility events in every modern Canadian election.
The big media players are calling the shots and Canadians somehow have been spoon fed the idea that there's democratic fairness involved.
The media bigwigs forced this play with their arbitrary "rules."
Greens are running against Liberals in 306 of 308 ridings in Canada. To deny the leader of a party that is running against the Liberals a seat at the debates on the basis of what is happening in two of 308 ridings while ignoring what is happening in the other 306 is patently undemocratic.
Numerous public opinion polls have been taken regarding May's eligibility to be in the televised debates. Canadians have consistently supported her appearance by a wide percentage -- 70%+.
It would seem that vote splitting between Greens and Liberals is a real possibility should the Green leader get into the debates. Dion, seemingly, would be the one leader with the most to lose. His latest battle cry of "Go green, vote red" is squarely aimed at GPC supporters. With GPC permission, he's adopted a major GPC policy. Yet, strangely enough, Dion is the only leader with the guts to call for Elizabeth's inclusion in the TV debates.
If the Broadcast Consortium, with the support of the CPC and NDP, continue to stonewall democratic debates, the public will see it as pure and simple fear. Big men in suits from established parties afraid of an upstart woman with conviction and a few hundred thousand supporters.
JB
Cam, I don't agree with everything you said, but its a fair post which states your views, without taking an unfair dig. I mention this because I left a long comment on the same subject at Accidental Deliberations after that post really rubbed me the wrong way.
I think this is an important step for the Green Party and I have confidence that May will do her best in the debates to represent her party and to make points that she sees as being in the best interests of Canada. On the latter, I know she feels Harper is a real threat and I'm with her there and I'll be grateful for her contribution.
Vote splitting is up to voters, and, of course, I am afraid of a another Harper win. I know people thinking Green from all 3 other parties. I know May wants votes for the Greens, but I think she would particularly like to take as many potential CPC votes as possible.
I want to hear what May says.
Wow... comments from everyone, even the usual snipe from Blues Clair. Thanks for that bit of history Anon because I forgot about that piece of it. As for what Ms. May may or may not have to say, I stand by my point about there being no point of having a Leader there who is saying they're pulling for another Leader to win. Some think that the NDP are crazy to dare to think about running to win, but those are the same kinds of people who said the same kinds of things about past CCF and NDP attempts in the provinces. Just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean it won't happen, and personally, Jack is taking the right track by say that he's "looking to take the PM's job". That's what a party leader is supposed to be doing.
As for the TV consortium, like I said, if they let her in, I won't fight it, but it's not my call.
It just doesn't make sense. You want Elizabeth to say that she thinks she might become the next Prime Minister. Why is this so important to you when it obviously is not true? This is Harper's strategy too, to say things that are not true in this universe (perhaps in some parallel one), with enough weasel room to get him what he wants. Why support such nonsense? I want leaders like May who are willing to say what they actually think, then what they have cooked up to get them a political advantage.
Cam, I'd like to echo Catherine's remark that you wrote a fair post. I should have been more gracious in my first comment.
WRT, the idea that debate participants should have a goal of being PM, you failed to address the Gilles Duceppe issue. Do you support Duceppe's inclusion. I've been on record not supporting the separatist's inclusion for years. My objection is not that he'll never be PM. It is that he represents a regional party and should not be in the federal debates. He is not a federal leader. He is not even a federalist.
While Elizabeth May is not such a pipe dreamer as to think she has a chance of winning, the GPC does field candidates across the entire country. And, we get votes in every riding where we run. That'll be 307 ridings in the next election.
Elections Canada funds the GPC to the tune of almost $1 million per year based on our 2006 election results. Taxpaying Canadian voters deserve to hear from the leader of a party that receives that sort of federal funding. The 650,000+ voters from every province who voted Green deserve to see their leader face off with the other federal leaders. If there's a shortage of chairs, the CheeseHat can stay away.
JB
Catherine... The whole point of running for office is to win, not to help the other guy win. If Ms. May really believes that Stephane Dion is the best choice for PM, then why is she running, in theory taking votes from him?
The whole point of being a national leader is to try to become the PM. If you're chances aren't that great, that's a totally fine, but how are you convincing people that they should vote for you when you're saying that someone else should get the spot you're going after, no matter how unlikely your winning might be? If you're trying to give people an alternative to vote for and you're trying to paint yourself as such, doesn't saying that you have no chance undercut that message?
My vantage point from this comes from someone who's run for office before. I didn't run to say that someone else would do it better. I ran because I thought I would do the best job. Were my chances the greatest? No, but I wouldn't help make those chances any better by saying that the other guy would be better suited. The whole point of running is to win, and that has nothing to do with "political advantage". Really, how am I supposed to consider voting for someone who's saying that someone else should be PM?
At the end of the day, Ms. May keeps talking about how she should be in that debate because they're a national party with national aspirations, but then turns around and says that she's not going to win. Sorry Catherine, but that doesn't make much sense either. I expect a leader to have faith in their own ability to win and aim higher, not admit that her odds are too long and conceed to someone else before the fights even happened. That's my point. It's the people who decide who becomes PM, and while her odds may be long in getting there, if she wants people to vote for her she undercuts herself by saying that she's not running to run the country.
JB... not a problem about the first comment. I noticed you had made similar comments at other places, so I just assumed that you got on some kind of role.
As for the Duceppe situation, I would never suggest keeping a party out of the debate that holds so many seats, even if it is from one province and makes it extremely unlikely that they would ever become the government. But, lets also not forget the Bloc managed to become the official opposition, so just because they are separatists, doesn't mean that their votes don't have an effect on the entire country. Also, if we start excluding parties based on beliefs, that opens us up to situations where parties with views that are not as popular with the media, but have seats, could be left out.
Let's face it, the Bloc is an anomoly in this. Like I said JB, if the media group lets Ms. May in, I won't fight it, but I think that this is not the best way for her to have possibly gotten in. Thanks again for reading.
May wants to win votes and seats. She is not going to be Canada's next PM and she knows this. Either Harper or Dion will be the next PM. May prefers Dion. I know you think the NDP might win an extra 80 seats in the next election, but you are one of a tiny minority holding that view. To most of us, it just seems nonsensical.
I don't know for sure, but I would guess that May thinks the whole point of being leader of the national Green party is to lead that party to as much success as possible, with regard to winning votes, winning seats, winning the minds of Canadians, and influencing the government. I really doubt she sees her role as trying to be Prime Minister in the next election.
I voted for the NDP under Layton in whatever elections he has run, but I must say, had he given me this "I am running to be Prime Minister" stuff, I would have thought twice. It simply doesn't make sense and I don't remember him saying that previously. I like the political leaders I am voting for to make sense. But that's just me.
Catherine... I don't know how the NDP is going to do during this election, and I don't claim to know. But what I can say for sure is that the NDP is going to aim for the top and let the voters decide, because at the end of the day, it's their choice. That's what a federal leader is supposed to do. It's not about where you might end up, it's about where your aiming and when you come out and say you're not aiming to be PM, you're sabatoging your own case for being in the debate with people who are, regardless of the likihoods of them getting there.
Cam, we've been down this road before but I'll go over the same ground again. If Elizabeth May were to say she expects to be elected PM, she would rightly be categorized as a lunatic. The Greens have never elected an MP. If she were to contend that we could elect 155 MPs in the next election, she would be delusional and, as such, she would be deemed unfit to lead a major political party. You are asking her to make ridiculous statements. All that would do would be to attract ridicule. I won't put words in your mouth but I'll ask you what you would say if May were to claim she had a chance at becoming PM in the next election. As a GPC member, I'd be calling for an immediate leadership review and I'd be worried about her mental state.
As Catherine pointed out, a leader need not be running for PM. Duceppe is not running for PM. He, like May, is running to increase his party's influence.
Your argument that she must run to be PM is disingenuous in light of your acceptance of Duceppe. Your demand that she consider herself as a possible leader of the GoC after the next election is unrealistic and is a double-bind, damned-if-you-do-dammed-if-you-don't proposition. Heads you win, tails May loses.
I've seen may in person a few times and heard her interviewed numerous times. When asked who she'd most like to see as PM, she has consistently said her first choice would be herself. Then, she acknowledges that such an expectation would be nuts and she says that between the two leaders who actually have any chance of being next Pm, she prefers Dion over Harper by a wide margin. I truly think that if she thought Layton had a snowball's chance in hell, she'd strongly consider backing him over Dion. He'd need to come around to pushing for a carbon tax to augment his cap-and-trade policy but wrt many social issues, the NDP is more close to GPC policy that is the LPC.
Layton will not be the next PM. Either Harper or Dion will be. To think that the NDP can win 155 seats this October is pure fantasy. We need to be reality-based. Fantasy-based and faith-based thinking is not reality. You can indulge in it if you want. Don't demand that the Greens indulge, too.
JB
JB... We've been down this road before, it's true, but I choose not to discount the power of Canadians. What's wrong in saying that it you're trying to be PM, despite the odds? That's not lunacy, that's just presenting Canadians an option. The choice is up to them, just like when the PC's got wiped off the map in 1993. Who would have thought they would see a majority government get reduced to 2 seats? The way I see it, the NDP is presenting Canadians with an option, and frankly I take insult (even thought I know you didn't intend any, I'm just saying) to the thought that there is something wrong with aiming for the top and thinking that Jack Layton should be PM. Is the likelyhood great? No, but I know that likelyhood isn't going to improve by say that someone else should be PM. Thanks again for reading JB.
What is wrong with it is that Layton is playing right into the hands of Harper and helping to keep Harper's support up. The Blogging Tories can be open about this and you can see them rooting for Layton, because the NDP is absolutely zero threat to them and they know it.
Layton's pretend-PM-approach is all part of the package - pretend there is no difference between Harper and Dion (except actually take more damaging hits at Dion because that is your real target) and that a vote for the NDP could place you as PM instead. It also erodes political discourse, by not focussing on what is really going to happen (or, if you insist, on what is almost certainly going to happen) - either Dion or Harper being the next PM. Layton can not focus on this because he doesn't care (actually, I personally think he would prefer Harper of the two). To me, not caring about this, is not caring enough about Canada if you support progressive values.
Harper is thrilled. I'm not.
May understands that she is trying to win votes in the real world, not in some ideal world. What she says and does has consequence and she would like them to lead to a better Canada. Yes, she will try to sell the Green Platform as best she can and try to convince people to vote Green. But, when she encounters spin that plays into Harper's hand, she will correct it and she isn't afraid to make it clear how she sees the differences between Dion and Harper and their platforms. I think May would like to wake up the morning after the election and feel that she hasn't done anything to make it less likely that Canada will take real action on climate chang. I get the feeling that is secondary to Layton. If he picks up twenty more seats and Harper is still PM, I honestly think Layton will be absolutely thrilled. That is the impression he is leaving me with.
Cam, my last post was pretty harsh. I'll lay off now. I'm not going back to the NDP under Layton, in any case, so that means I'm not the type of voter he is working on anyway. If/when leaders change, it may be a different story.
Cam, JB is giving your logic a thrashing, and you can hope that Layton will end up PM with some freak flip in public opinion, but we both KNOW it won't happen without a massive event that neither of us could see until it happened.
Catherine... thanks for the apology... I would just say that I can't worry about what makes Stephen Harper happy, because to me, Stephane Dion is not an alternative. If given my choice, I want Jack Layton to be PM and if I fail in that attempt, so be it, but I'm not going to accept less just because Stephen Harper might like it. We can do better, and frankly I'm tired of taking that "least of two evils".
Saskboy... Sorry, but while I respect JB and his opinion, he's hardly "trashing" me. At the end of the day, it's up to the voters of Canada do decide, and I don't know what they will do, and neither do you. Before the last election, who pictured the Cons winning any seats in Quebec, let alone 10? No one. Before the last election, who saw the Liberals losing Outremont??? No one. Those things happened without major events (depending I guess by what you take to be major). Personally, I'm sick and tired of being attacked for believing daring to suggest that Stephen Harper is wrong but that the Liberals aren't the solution. Remember, 40% of Canadians who actually voted last time agreed with that assessment because they didn't vote either Conservative or Liberal. That's not a small amount of people. Anyway, that's just my two cents.
Post a Comment