Angry in the Great White North

John Ogilvie is member of the Green Party of Ontario, a software CEO, and pretty sharp guy.  He's run to be the MPP in Carleton-Mississippi Mills, so he knows his way around an election.  He actually got an endorsement in the 2007 Ontario election from the Ottawa Citizen, so this is no lightweight.

So when I read stuff from him concerning what's going on inside the federal Green Party, I give him the benefit of the doubt.

The big news is that Elizabeth May is blaming the Green Party for not electing any MPs, and in particular, for not doing enough to get Elizabeth May elected.  In her opinion, she was about the only good thing in the Green Party campaign.

As a result of so-called analysis, John Ogilvie seeing a lot of stuff happening behind the scenes in the Green Party:

This report isn't that confidential. Many Green candidates and members saw it last week. I even blogged about it last week (previous post). It's not news. The reaction to this document on the GPC Candidates email list was so critical that EM withdrew from the group a few days ago. (The previous week, the discussion was so critical that Sharon Labchuk, EM's enforcer, actually shut the list down. Sunday night GPC council ordered it to be re-opened. )

Again, evidence we've been seeing of Elizabeth May and a clique of supporters at odds with the rest of the Green Party leadership.  We saw this during the campaign, when Elizabeth May clearly called for strategic voting anywhere but in Central Nova, which was followed by "clarifications" by the Green Party that Green Party supporters ought to vote for the Green Party.  Period.

John Ogilvie correctly interprets the "leak" of the Elizabeth May memo as a deliberate attempt by Elizabeth May or her supporters to "frame" the debate.  And it seems to be working, because we're not generally hearing about Green Party infighting.

So what is the other side of the story?  According to John Ogilvie, Elizabeth May has been using the Green Party as a vehicle for her own personal success, and as a means of doling out favours and benefits to her supporters.  I bet he's not the only one who thinks that:

The framing of critics is that she spent 2/3 of the campaign in her own (unwinnable) riding, ignoring the needs of the other 306 candidates. She siphoned party cash, media and staff into this riding. The federal campaign team did indeed run the worst campaign in GPC history (given the unprecedented staff and money). But, as I pointed out in my previous post, Elizabeth has arranged for her friends and 2006 campaign staff to take over the key paid-staff roles in the party.

So what of the memo itself?  It was very critical of the Green Party for not having done enough to help Elizabeth May.  Not too many people were impressed:

One local and successful campaign manager read her analysis and described it as "complete bullshit".

Well, that's one opinion, but then apparently that business with the email list suggests that it is a widely shared opinion.

The infighting makes for entertaining reading, of course, but it goes deeper than that.  As Elizabeth May likes to point out, the Green Party is the only party that went up in votes.  That means more taxpayer money going this organization.  That's worrisome.  Who controls the cash donated unwillingly by taxpayers?  Elizabeth May?

Indeed, Elizabeth May threatened to quit in June 2007 unless she had some measure of control over the money:

Green Leader Elizabeth May, frustrated and "bone-weary" over her small salary, a sore hip, an exhausting schedule and internal bickering over the party's debt, warned senior party members last month that she might resign if they removed her from the party's budget committee, CanWest News has learned.

May's declaration was in response to a proposal from former interim executive-director David Scrymgeour, who was urging the party to slash spending and eliminate its debt.

Scrymgeour, who refused to comment when contacted, also said that May should step down from the party's budget review committee.

May responded that the spending cuts would kill the party's chances of winning seats in the next election.

Well, the Green Party didn't win any seats.  Is anyone in the Green Party suggesting that David Scrymgeour's idea be revisited?  In particular, that Elizabeth May step down from the budget committee?

I'm willing to bet that Elizabeth May has worked hard to strengthen her hold on the Green Party since June 2007.  Her campaign analysis might be part of that ongoing effort, in this case an attempt to lay the groundwork to remove more of her critics.  We're also seeing her critics fight back.

Is this about the environment?  Doesn't seem like it.  Seems to be a fight over power and money.  Like you see in any other party from time to time.

The Green Party.  Just another political party.  Elizabeth May.  Just another politician.