It seems entirely likely that the Greens will end up following Lib-style anti-democratic advice as to handle pesky outbreaks of riding-level democracy, in this case Stuart Hertzog's intention to challenge Elizabeth May for the party's nomination in Saanich-Gulf Islands. But if they have the slightest bit of foresight, wouldn't they see a nomination contest featuring candidates taking somewhat different angles (but where May would presumably have the far stronger chance of winning) as their best chance of actually assembling the type of organization which they're currently lacking in the riding?
Update: Due credit to the Greens for resisting the temptation to follow the Lib-style advice.
Showing posts with label saanich-gulf islands. Show all posts
Showing posts with label saanich-gulf islands. Show all posts
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Friday, October 24, 2008
Interconnected
There's plenty of material worth reading about the Cons' shady dealings in Saanich-Gulf Islands which may have made the difference in Gary Lunn's reelection. But one part of the story seems to have received surprisingly little mention given how it ties the riding's shenanigans into the Cons' government as a whole.
Here's the background to one of the contacts listed for one of the astroturf groups set up to advertise for Lunn (see second link above):
Now, there's no indication that Morgan had direct ties to the Lunn ad buys. But Trottier's link to Morgan would seem to add another reason for serious skepticism about the groups involved. And Morgan's continued involvement as a benefactor for the right-wing noise machine can only confirm that the opposition parties were right to reject his appointment rather than allowing somebody so closely tied to the Cons and their ideological allies to set the parameters for hiring within the public service.
Here's the background to one of the contacts listed for one of the astroturf groups set up to advertise for Lunn (see second link above):
Until September, (Patricia) Trottier was a director of CV Technologies, the company that promotes the controversial Cold-FX remedy championed by Don Cherry.Oddly, the Tyee leaves out what may be the most important piece of Morgan's background. Presumably due in large part to his well-documented Con connections, he was Harper's idea of a chair for a non-partisan public appointments commission. And it was in response to his rejection by the opposition parties that Harper threw a tantrum and refused to set up the commission.
Her husband is Gwyn Morgan, the former president and CEO of EnCana Corporation and a former fundraiser for the Canadian Alliance and Conservative parties.
Together Morgan and Trottier own Victoria's eighth most expensive home and sit on the board of the C2C Journal along with other right wing luminaries like former Reform Party leader Preston Manning, the Fraser Institute's Michael Walker and Calgary professor and Harper adviser Tom Flanagan. Morgan and Trottier gave $1 million last year to the Fraser Institute Foundation, the right-wing advocacy group.
Now, there's no indication that Morgan had direct ties to the Lunn ad buys. But Trottier's link to Morgan would seem to add another reason for serious skepticism about the groups involved. And Morgan's continued involvement as a benefactor for the right-wing noise machine can only confirm that the opposition parties were right to reject his appointment rather than allowing somebody so closely tied to the Cons and their ideological allies to set the parameters for hiring within the public service.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
On disinterest
In the comments to this morning's post, Celeste points out an article on the results from the Greens' nomination meeting in Saanich-Gulf Islands. But while Andrew Lewis has been nominated as the Greens' candidate once again, tonight's results suggest that Lewis is seriously lacking for support within the riding:
Of course, the "none of the above" camp proved to be even weaker at only 4 votes, meaning that Lewis will get the Green nomination again. But based on Lewis' tepid support and the public airing of the possibility of not contesting the riding, it looks entirely possible that the next federal election will continue Lewis' pattern of losing votes as time goes by - ensuring that a former target riding gets further out of reach for the Greens.
Update: A different set of numbers from another blog forced me to check my off-the-cuff math - but the result suggests that the Saanich-Gulf Islands Greens have their own results wrong. 17 votes out of 21 would have led to a result of 81%, while 18 would have led to a result of 86%: there's simply no way for a whole number of votes over a denominator of 21 to lead to a result of 84%.
It is possible that the result could have been something along the lines of 16 for Lewis, 3 for "none of the above" and 2 spoiled ballots - which would result in 21 members eligible to vote, while 84% of the actual votes went to Lewis. But that would only reduce Lewis' level of support even further...and hint at another set of potential voters who weren't willing to actually support him.
After a heated meeting and lively debate, Green party members in the Saanich-Gulf Islands riding voted today to run a candidate in the next federal election.Now, ordinarily a turnout of 21 people to acclaim a repeat candidate might not be cause for too much concern. But with the "none of the above" option receiving national media coverage in the days before the meeting, I'd have to figure that Lewis would have tried to rally his troops to solidify the nomination rather than risking having his candidacy torpedoed by even a modicum of organization on the "none of the above" side. And the Greens can't be happy that their investment of nearly $100,000 in Lewis over the past two federal elections translated into a meager 17 members who showed up to vote for him.
An e-mail urging Green Party members to vote "none of the above" rather than select Andrew Lewis as riding representative was sent out by a small group of dissenters Thursday.
The signees don't think a Green party candidate could win the riding and wants members to vote for Liberal candidate Briony Penn or NDP candidate Julian West, both former Green Party of B.C. members, instead of running one of their own in order to unseat Conservative MP Gary Lunn...
After the two hour meeting, 84 per cent of the 21 members in attendance voted to have Lewis represent the party.
Of course, the "none of the above" camp proved to be even weaker at only 4 votes, meaning that Lewis will get the Green nomination again. But based on Lewis' tepid support and the public airing of the possibility of not contesting the riding, it looks entirely possible that the next federal election will continue Lewis' pattern of losing votes as time goes by - ensuring that a former target riding gets further out of reach for the Greens.
Update: A different set of numbers from another blog forced me to check my off-the-cuff math - but the result suggests that the Saanich-Gulf Islands Greens have their own results wrong. 17 votes out of 21 would have led to a result of 81%, while 18 would have led to a result of 86%: there's simply no way for a whole number of votes over a denominator of 21 to lead to a result of 84%.
It is possible that the result could have been something along the lines of 16 for Lewis, 3 for "none of the above" and 2 spoiled ballots - which would result in 21 members eligible to vote, while 84% of the actual votes went to Lewis. But that would only reduce Lewis' level of support even further...and hint at another set of potential voters who weren't willing to actually support him.
Leading nowhere
We'll find out before long whether or not the Greens will follow the advice of some activists in declining to nominate a candidate for Saanich-Gulf Islands. But whatever the outcome of today's nomination meeting, Elizabeth May's reaction to the possibility of a "none of the above" vote raises some serious questions about her leadership:
Remember that the Greens have already faced a similar issue in St. Catharines, where former party leadership candidate Jim Fannon proposed that the Greens bow out of the riding (albeit through a slightly different process).
Given that the potential for the Greens to bow out of ridings has already received substantial media discussion, it's remarkable that May doesn't seem to have either any knowledge of the immediate effect of a "none of the above" nomination vote, or a sense of what the party's national council could or would do in response. And if May can't be bothered to keep track of either the rules or the prevailing sentiment within her own party, there's all the more reason to think she'd be similarly ineffective in dealing with national issues in Parliament.
Federal Green Party Leader Elizabeth May said yesterday she does not know what will happen if her party chooses not to run a candidate in Saanich-Gulf Islands at a contentious nomination meeting scheduled for this afternoon.It's well and good that in this case, May claims that she'll at least listen to what local members have to say. But it would surely make sense then to have some understanding of how to give effect to the will of the riding association - and May seems to be sorely lacking in that department.
"I'm just trying to respect the will of local members at this point," Ms. May said yesterday, refusing to speculate on what might happen...
There is general confusion over what will happen if Mr. Lewis does not win today. Mr. Lewis said that if the majority of the vote goes to "none of the above," the riding association will hold another nomination race, and he will run again. Mr. Horter said such a vote would send a strong message to the national party that there is a will not to run a Green Party candidate. Ms. May said she was unsure what will happen if Mr. Lewis is not nominated.
"I've been leader since August and I'm still trying to figure out what policies are in place," she said, explaining she doesn't know if the party's federal council has the right to appoint a candidate or if they would do so even if they had that right.
The party passed a motion in 2003 calling on it to have a candidate in every riding. However, that may not be valid in its newly passed constitution, Ms. May said.
Remember that the Greens have already faced a similar issue in St. Catharines, where former party leadership candidate Jim Fannon proposed that the Greens bow out of the riding (albeit through a slightly different process).
Given that the potential for the Greens to bow out of ridings has already received substantial media discussion, it's remarkable that May doesn't seem to have either any knowledge of the immediate effect of a "none of the above" nomination vote, or a sense of what the party's national council could or would do in response. And if May can't be bothered to keep track of either the rules or the prevailing sentiment within her own party, there's all the more reason to think she'd be similarly ineffective in dealing with national issues in Parliament.
Friday, June 29, 2007
On island offensives
The Tyee has an interesting article on the state of the Saanich-Gulf Islands riding, where Gary Lunn, who manages to stand out as exceptionally reckless on the environment even among the Cons, has managed to hold onto a riding with a seemingly strong environmental vote. But while I'll leave Lunn's continued presence for a discussion another day, there's one note worth pointing out based on the riding's history.
While the Tyee notes that Green candidate Andrew Lewis was seen as a disappointment for his loss of votes from 2004 to 2006, the party's expenditures in the riding offer what looks to be a complete explanation for Lewis' dropoff. And the story surrounding Lewis says an awful lot about both where the Greens now stand nationally, and how unlikely they are to progress much further anytime soon.
In 2004, the Greens showered Saanich-Gulf Islands with $79,731 in election spending - close to the maximum expenditure for a riding, and nearly double the $40,318 spent on NDP candidate Jennifer Burgis (who still finished five points ahead of Lewis). In contrast, in 2006 the Greens seem to have put their money elsewhere, spending only $19,061.08 on Lewis - which combined with increased investments from the NDP and the Libs explains the Greens' dropoff in votes.
Now, that decline in spending offers a reasonable excuse for Lewis' 2006 performance. But the reality from 2004 highlights the distance between the Greens and victory in even the most favourable-looking ridings across the country. After all, Lewis couldn't break out of fourth place even while spending to the maximum in what was obviously a strong target riding - and the 2006 results signal that the Greens are fighting a losing battle to try to retain any support they can win with a single-riding push.
Out of an abundance of fairness to Lewis, I'll point out as well that his 2004 showing doesn't appear to reflect the most wasteful per-vote spending in the riding's history; that honour goes to the Canadian Action Party's Valerie Rampone, who managed to spend $4,335 on 234 votes in 1997 in a losing bid to finish ahead of the Natural Law Party. But especially with extremely strong environmental candidates running for the NDP and Libs, it looks like the Greens have already peaked in what was once their best hope for a seat - and aside from the media spotlight on Elizabeth May in her effort to leap past both the Cons and NDP in Central Nova, they'll likely have to hope to catch the other parties napping to seriously challenge anywhere else.
While the Tyee notes that Green candidate Andrew Lewis was seen as a disappointment for his loss of votes from 2004 to 2006, the party's expenditures in the riding offer what looks to be a complete explanation for Lewis' dropoff. And the story surrounding Lewis says an awful lot about both where the Greens now stand nationally, and how unlikely they are to progress much further anytime soon.
In 2004, the Greens showered Saanich-Gulf Islands with $79,731 in election spending - close to the maximum expenditure for a riding, and nearly double the $40,318 spent on NDP candidate Jennifer Burgis (who still finished five points ahead of Lewis). In contrast, in 2006 the Greens seem to have put their money elsewhere, spending only $19,061.08 on Lewis - which combined with increased investments from the NDP and the Libs explains the Greens' dropoff in votes.
Now, that decline in spending offers a reasonable excuse for Lewis' 2006 performance. But the reality from 2004 highlights the distance between the Greens and victory in even the most favourable-looking ridings across the country. After all, Lewis couldn't break out of fourth place even while spending to the maximum in what was obviously a strong target riding - and the 2006 results signal that the Greens are fighting a losing battle to try to retain any support they can win with a single-riding push.
Out of an abundance of fairness to Lewis, I'll point out as well that his 2004 showing doesn't appear to reflect the most wasteful per-vote spending in the riding's history; that honour goes to the Canadian Action Party's Valerie Rampone, who managed to spend $4,335 on 234 votes in 1997 in a losing bid to finish ahead of the Natural Law Party. But especially with extremely strong environmental candidates running for the NDP and Libs, it looks like the Greens have already peaked in what was once their best hope for a seat - and aside from the media spotlight on Elizabeth May in her effort to leap past both the Cons and NDP in Central Nova, they'll likely have to hope to catch the other parties napping to seriously challenge anywhere else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)