Secret deals, heavy-handed “talking points” and internal emails show the friction within Elizabeth May’s Green party
Macleans.ca staff, Macleans Magazine
This week’s Maclean’s investigation of Green leader Elizabeth May refers to the Green Party of Canada as a “phosphate-free soap opera.” And there’s no more telling indicator of internal friction than party member willingness to leak confidential emails.
Most of the missives received by Maclean’s pertained to the fallout from the controversial agreement between Elizabeth May and Stéphane Dion that they would not run candidates in one another’s ridings in the next federal election. Soon after the April 12 announcement was made, a talking-points directive was sent out about how to field questions. Other correspondence reflects members’ concerns that May flouted protocol by not receiving formal approval from the executive council before announcing the arrangement.
Also forwarded were May’s responses to party members on various topics—including strategic voting, the defection of former Green Briony Penn to the Liberals and the “corrupt Liberal establishment.” Through it all May remains resilient buoyed by the 10 lessons learned at her mother’s knee, included in her 2006 activism primer How to Save the World in Your Spare Time.
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:26 am
You know, with a title like this, I was kind of hoping for tastier e-mails than those served up by Macleans. With headlines like that, I was hoping for something with, you know, a bit more sizzle.
What, people are upset that Elizabeth May made a deal with Stephane Dion? And they call that news? Wow.
To my mind, May took a gamble with the Stephane Dion Deal. As a Leader, that’s what you do. And the jury is still out regarding whether or not it servs the long-term interests of the party. If it leads to the first Green Party member elected in Parliament in the next election, I would say that the gamble paid off.
October 22nd, 2007 at 8:26 am
yes, it’s pretty dry…there’s not that much sizzle to the article, as you say…but the piece is pretty competently written and it hints at all the usual problems, i.e. lack of funding, an increasing exodus of talent from the party due to people not having the opportunities they’d like to have.
I think, though, that you have a limited view of things as a party insider. It’s an in-depth view of the 10% or so of the public that is politicized enough to appreciate stuff like this…but which does not take into consideration that something like 90% of the Canadian public don’t even know what policies the Greens actually stand for - and the only exposure to the party they get is through mainstream media pieces like this one, or like the coverage of the GPC wanting to get into the leaders’ debate. And those ‘news’ items won’t increase anyone’s grasp on what the policies and ideas are.
So, what I am saying is the Average Joe might not have a clue about GP-squared (which is a good document) but they actually might read the Maclean’s article and concede that “E May is a bitch…”. That’s pretty much my concern.
October 24th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
You call that “friction”? It looked like May’s last email to wrap up that article answered the concerns exactly how I’d expect ordinary Canadians would want them addressed.
October 28th, 2007 at 1:53 am
It must take conviction to the cause (the environment) vs. the political party for the party faithful to toil endlessly in support of their party to then be told to vote strategically in support of another party. But if Sister Elizabeth wins her seat its all worth it , right? As long as the Liberal Party leaders are accommodating of Greens, will the Greens continue to support the Liberal party, eg. MAy covering for Dion on the throne speech re. Kyoto (Will the world now end?) ?
Voters will equate Liberal to Green. Then why vote Green when you can vote for the real thing. Where must the grass roots support be drawn from to build a Green Party that will win seats? There can be NO accommodation. This outsider won’t waste one minute on a party that isn’t focused on the building the party for the long term.