Monday, July 19, 2010

Sylvie Lemieux's First Mis-Step of Her Leadership Campaign: Announcing Her Intention to Lead the Green Party

It was brought to my attention earlier today that Ottawa-area Green, Sylvie Lemieux, officially launched a challenge for the Green Party's leadership at a barbecue hosted by municipal councilor and nominated Green Party candidate Bob Bell, in Guelph held this past weekend (see this article from the Guelph Mercury: "Race to Challenge Green Leader Launched in Guelph"). This came as a tremendous surprise to me, as there hasn't been a leadership contest called at this time. In fact, the Party will be voting on motions at our upcoming Biennial General Meeting in Toronto this August which will determine whether there is to be a leadership contest at all this year. Her announcement, however, was likely anticipated by some party-insiders.

Now, I don't know Sylvie Lemieux at all. Many of the readers of this blog probably don't know much about her either; she's a relative unknown in this Party, although she was the candidate for the Glengarry-Prescott-Russell electoral district in the 2008 election, coming in 4th with 5.3% of the vote in the district currently held by Conservative Pierre Lemieux. This riding used to be a Liberal stronghold, held by Don Boudria. Sylvie Lemieux is also currently the nominated candidate for the Greens in GPR for the next election.

The Guelph Mercury describes Lemiuex as a former supporter of leadership hopeful David Chernushenko, which lends credence to some of the comments I've seen around the blogosphere about Elizabeth May's leadership being opposed by those who were unhappy with the leadership results in 2006. Chernushenko, as you may know, is no longer with the Green Party; I understand that he is currently seeking a seat on Ottawa's municipal council.

There's obviously some history to what's been going on (or not going on) with the leadership contest in the Green Party. You must know by now that our Constitution requires that a leadership contest be held in 2010, but at the present time, no contest has been called. Motions are currently before the membership for online voting which may lead to the postponenment of a leadership contest, or doing away with a contest altogether in favour of a leadership review to occur after the next election. There is also a motion before the membership which requires our Federal Council (the Green Party's governing body) to uphold the Constitution of the Party and begin the leadership contest process; Sylvie Lemieux's name appears as one of the "sponsors" of this motion, so presumably that's the motion she was referring to in the Guelph Mercury article (although it's presumptuous to suggest that she'll be "putting it forward" at the BGM in August, because if the membership votes it down pre-BGM through the online voting process, there won't be anything more to this at the BGM. I just hope that she's not referring to trying to introduce an "emergency motion" of some sort from the floor at the BGM, because under our Party's rules, that's not at all an appropriate time to do so).

As I've expressed in this blog before, I will be supporting the motion sponsored by our Federal Council which seeks to change the way in which our Party elects its Leader. I'm troubled by the notion of having fixed and inflexible leadership terms as per our Party's Constitution. National polling continues to suggest that we're in store for more minority government situations. Given that our Party advocates some form of proportional representation to replace the current First Past the Post electoral system, it's fair to say that we're comfortable enough with minority governments and coalitions to advocate for a higher level of electoral uncertainty than what Canada has traditionally come to expect. In order to take full advantage of our own Party's policies regarding proportional representation, we as a political party need to become more flexible with our decision-making structure. The fixed-term leadership contest provision in our Constitution does not allow us the degree of flexibility we need.

But whether you agree or not with our current fixed leadership term, or whether you support (or not) Federal Council's motion to change the way in which we elect a leader, I suspect that you will find Sylvie Lemieux's move to challenge the current Party leadership as problematic, sophomoric, and in really bad taste. So much for Party unity, Sylvie!

Look, I know that not everyone lines up behind the leader of any political party. Usually, though, if you don't agree with the Leader, you either suck it up and wait it out; leave the party until a more opportune time; or quietly seek to change the outcome, maybe even building your network for a challenge when the time arrives.

Lemieux is an unknown and unaccomplished Green. Her political instincts seem to be very lacking with this outrageous move to openly challenge for the leadership of this Party over the weekend. She's chosen neither option for disgruntled party members, and instead has decided to create an option for herself by openly announcing the challenge. Likely with the hopes of attracting other disgruntled Party members to rally 'round her flag before some of the bigger names have stepped up.

Of course, the bigger names are likely building their networks as we speak, but they're politically savvy enough not to tip their hands until the right moment: that would be when the current Leader resigns or a leadership contest is called. And that's the proper way for serious candidates to approach the job. Challenging the leader when there is no formal mechanism for challenge is the height of hubris.

But...let's not completely discount Sylvie Lemieux at this time. By announcing her challenge in Guelph at Bob Bell's bbq, she's making a statement with regards to the sort of backing from higher-profile party members she's trying to receive. Guelph, where Mike Nagy ably represented this Party in the last Federal election, is one of those ridings which we have a pretty good chance of contesting, and by all accounts, Bob Bell, who sits on Guelph's city council, might just be the right guy to do it. It's also been suggested that our current party leader has some popularity-related issues in Guelph (although I've heard nothing about Bob Bell's thoughts on this matter outside of what's reported in the Guelph Mercury article). By announcing her challenge to Elizabeth May at Bob Bell's place, Sylvie Lemieux has thrown down the gauntlet which she hopes will be picked up by dissatisfied Central Ontario members, many of whom tend to be from the more "right side" of the political spectrum.

If this is the banner she hopes to carry into an at this time hypothetical leadership contest, she's certainly going about it in a strange way by becoming a lightening rod for Elizabeth May supporters throughout the Party, and especially those from everywhere outside of Central Ontario. She's suddenly become the poster-child for those Ontario Greens disgruntled with the 2006 election who want to dump our current leader. That might be a fine poster to be on...if there were a leadership contest. Without a contest, I'm sorry, but it is to laugh.

No doubt the other parties will be having a field day with this latest news out of our Party, which is just now starting to filter into the mainstream media. Did Paul Martin ever openly challenge Jean Chretien when Chretien was leader? How about Chretien when Turner was leader? The sort of action taken by Sylvie Lemieux just isn't contemplated in other national parties. By declaring an open challenge to Elizabeth May's leadership, she's apt to make our Party look like an amateurish laughingstock. If it was just making herself look that way, that's one thing, but I've no doubt that the media and the dog-eat-dog blogosphere is going to have some fun with this. Way to go, Sylvie.

As I indicated earlier, I don't know a lot about Sylvie Lemieux. Heck, I might even agree with a lot of what she stands for. But I do not and will not agree with issuing an open challenge to our Party's leadership this past weekend, at a time when there is no mechanism to actually reach out and seize the leadership. Sylvie Lemieux has made her first mis-step, and it's a doozy.

23 comments:

Volkov said...

Steve,

I understand your point about not wanting these set, inflexible dates for leadership elections within the Green Party, but does it not strike you at all as suspicious that May and the executive is pushing for this to take effect right now, during May's current tenure as leader?

If anything, the leadership review should be set up after this current leadership race, which May has to face. If she has nothing to worry about, then she should accept it and have the race, and the problem is fixed for next time. The fact that its being pushed now, when there is so much disgruntlement among some Greens that even a Liberal like me can hear, is just too coincidental to not be a tad suspicious.

shavluk said...

Instead of putting in a special resolution at Pictou to only stop me from running for council again

elley may could have put one in to deal with the coming leadership contest

she again has no fore thought and only spent time to again cause grief for hard working members

she deserves to be just kicked out of the party if members actually knew what she did and said in court

as the leader to sit there and say our constitution is nothing...not binding and is only a "guide" is to me stupid and malicious and from some one who considers herself above all of us and no leader

for you to now say wait for another election loss is also ridiculous as again no fore thought exists

after one more loss

what will there be to inherit???


sorry but she had 4 years to get way smarter and failed miserably

and showed herself stupid with the gaffs along the way

she should just quit and run liberal
they are stupid enough to take her I am sure

and she can then loose for them for a change

the green party will be nothing more than a laughing stock if we cave in and then have her lose badly in SGI,BC
which of course will happen as I will run against her myself if need be and just show court documents to prove all I say

she now has no credibility and has shown herself to be very untrustworthy

stop trying to change our constitution with out a vote
who do you think you are ?...elley may ???????

Rural said...

I am with you on this one Steve. A small number of vocal "greens" seem to have an issue with EM but creating friction and division at this time is not helping "the party" at all.

Anonymous said...

I don't think the issue is anti May so much as against the strategy she and council have put forward.

We claim we are different yet internally leadership plays silly bugger with the constitution, has interfered in local contests, starves head office for resources all to gain one seat that may be unattainable, rather than work for a strong network that builds support nationwide.

Many also see the never ending global warming jabber as self defeating. We are seen as depressed and fixated rather than a well rounded visionary party that is For something rather than against everything.

I don't support Lemieux, in fact I've never heard of her but it should have been an expected response after May's recent inappropriate letter to members.

Mark Taylor said...

Apply the standard universally then... is putting all of our eggs into one basket "helping the party". How's that decision working out in Sudbury Steve? Is your regional organizer from Edmonton been helpful in getting the Sudbury EDA growing?

How has not following the Constitution been "helpful to the party"? All we have communicated to Canadians is that we are willing to change the rules if they don't personally benefit us.

What do you base your comments of "unaccomplished" around? Have you seen her resume? Or are you basing it around her 2008 results in the general election. In that case, nobody in the Green Party is accomplished though some have been very well financed to be unaccomplished.

You may call it a misstep, I would say it's just out of step with the current administration... and this leadership (including Federal Council) hasn't exactly demonstrated a whole lot of political acumen over the last couple years. Maybe being out of step with them is a good thing.

Ken Summers said...

You are talking realism Steve, so I'll speak from that perspective.

First of all, as internal party process in general go, Elizabeth May is an extremely polarizing figure.

So saying that critics in general, or Sylvie in general, is 'creating tension' is just bunk.

And you did come into this current controversy with an existing Consittutional process. Plus, collectively you had the opportunity to get the race done and out of the way when there was no possibility of bumping up aganst an election.

But Elizabeth May and company not only wanted to change the rules in the middle of the game, they expected to have ALL the marbles. An outsiders view of a way to keep everyone sufficiently happy- when you agree that both sides have a case- would have been to go ahead and get the race done.

But that wasnt seriously discussed. Future planning went on ahead with the assumption there wouldnt be a race. Putting facts on the ground.

You are letting the fact you agreed with wanting to delay the race cloud your judgement about whats fair and right.

I think its a bit foolish to expect that when a battering ram is used on people who had the Constitutuion in their favour, they should jst sit back and say, "thats OK."

Bluegreenblogger said...

Hmmm, Steve, this is the predictable, and traditional response in the Green Party of Canada. Don't rock the boat, and an unhealthy obsession with the 'optics' of any hint of public division.
Fact is that the entire reson that Sylvie felt impelled to launch a challenge to the leadership review motion is because the valid mechanism to hold a leadership contest is still enshrined in the Constitution of the Party, and the current leadership is attempting to remove the possibility of challenge for all time, with their Review motion.
If the Leadership was acting in good faith, then they would not have couched their motion as a review motion, they would have presented a motion to move a Leadership race to after the next election. Instead, they chose to put forward a motion that all but eliminates the possibility of any leadership challenge, ever. If you want to know how a review process works, you need look no further than the Green Party of Ontario. It is, in effect, a Leader for Life motion.
the 'couple of individuals' you know about are simply the lightning rods. It is unfortunate that there is no way for people like you, and rural to have any idea about how the issues are playing out in the wider context. You have to balance what minimal impressios you can form, in the absence of real and actionable information, and come to your conclusions based on next to no data.
So, you see an observable fact. Sylvie declares that she is a candidate for the Leadership of the Green Party. You see a second observable fact, that Elizabeth May has called it an attempt to force her to resign. You know of a small group of bloggers and 'malcontents' who are the only public source of critical information that you can access, and because they have a published agenda you distrust them. You place your trust amd faith in the Leadership, and that is that.
You should be a little more critical in your thinking, and purt a little more faith in the membership of the Party. That is all that Sylvie, and the significant number of people who do support her candidacy are asking for. It is very important for the health of the Party that the membership be engaged in the governance of the Party. There is only 1 practical means of effecting that, and it is how the GPC has been resolving it's differences over many years. For example, you imply that it is sour grapes over Chernushenko's loss that motivates Elizabeths opposition, but you should maybe consider that these people are your fellow members in the GPC, and have been fought many more elections than you have. Even if you are correct, and they are sore losers, then what better mechanism is there to co-opt their talents, and maintain the Party membership, than to let them air their grievances, fight the good fight, and either prove their points in a Leadership win, or put their grievances back in a box with the issues settled? This is, geographically, and in terms of issue advocacy a big and diverse party. That is changing pretty quickly, and what was once an electoral alliance of diverse interests and regions, is settling into something more monolithic.
Anyway, I don't know if I am even coming close to making any points with you here. If you have decided that ideas, governance, constitutuionality and all the other things that interest thousands of your fellow greens deserve to take a second place to an ephemeral public perception of the Party, then no arguments, no matter how well conceived are going to sway you. You have said your piece, and are welcome to publicise it in any way or form you wish. You will even have your first, and possibly last chance to actually watch internal democracy happening this summer, and you can work as hard as you please to ensure there we limit all opportunity for future dissent. Will we be seeing you at the BGM?

John Ogilvie said...

The GPC had a leadership race in 2006, and will have one in 2010, and another in 2014. That's what the members wrote into the constitution in 2006.

Elizabeth, most one federal council and a number of armchair strategists want to change the rules. They have proposed a constitutional amendment to that effect, but the members may or may not agree to that change.

This being already the second half of 2010, I admire Ms. Lemieux's timing in her announcement. She is the only person who is actually Playing By the Rules As They Are Currently Written.

If the membership chooses not to amend the constitution, Sylvie is going to look a lot smarter than her fellow leadership contenders now sitting timidly on the sidelines.

John Ogilvie

Sudbury Steve said...

Well, first off, thank you everyone for sharing your comments. I suspected that this matter would generate some text, and so it has. Let me try to respond to some of what's been said.

First, though, readers of this blog must know that I've been very focused on the Constitutional matters which have been wracking this Party since they were brought to my attention back in December, 2009 (at the time a "special AGM" was being considered...a type of meeting for which we have no directions on how to hold in our Constitution or by-laws).

I have never bought into the notion that "4 years" means "4 years to the day", so I continue to see that there is a requirement in our Constitution for a Leadership contest which can yet be met in 2010. So from that perspective, there hasn't yet been the sorts of Constitutional violations some have suggested.

If the Members change the rules regarding how we elect a leader this coming August, either through online voting (available to the entire membership) or through a workshopped motion adopted at the BGM, and if the change is ratified by the membership shortly thereafter, why would this not be seen as a legitimate process? Yes, it's true, the membership is being exposed to some considerable and phony (in my opinion) arguments about the reasons why a change is necessary. Bunk. It's a political reason, not a Constitutional or a mechanical one. At best, a Constitutinal rationale is the one that I've put forward: the Constitution isn't flexible enough. But that's hardly going to resonate with the membership to spur them on to vote for the change. Better: some dissident elements in the Party are trying to dump Elizabeth May! Vote for this change! Again, I didn't see that as factually correct; instead, those who have been advocating against the Fed Council motion have much more likely to use the Constitution as their shield.

But that all changed this weekend. Looks to me like there is a group of Greens centred around Sylvie Lemieux who do, in fact, want to dump our Leader, and that's what's likely motivating her decision to go public.

I kind of shrugged it off in the text of my original post when I said "so much for party unity". But really, that's a big deal, and I, as an interested member of the Green Party, am very shocked and saddened to see this sort of public declaration outside of the timing of a leadership contest. This is not what the Party needs, and it would not have happened in other parties. We are potentially going to hurt ourselves.

What is Sylvie going to do when the Membership votes to change our Constitution? Is she going to continue to challenge the Leadership? She could hardly backdown now, could she? Not now that she's gone public on the matter, and for her stated reasons. So we're going to fight the next election while fending off an internal leadership challenge? That's just disgusting and stinks of bad politicking, and it will stick to Sylvie Lemieux.

@John Ogilvie, you may be right: if the membership votes to keep the current Constitution, maybe Sylvie Lemieux will end up smelling like a rose. Maybe not, though, because even many who are not friends of the leader will see her early declaration as a sign of her political immaturity.

And after all of the efforts the current leadership group is putting into whipping the membership to vote in a certain way, I would be very surprised to find out that the membership voted down Fed Council's motion. And even more surprised if it ever went to a workshop at the BGM. I'm sure some in this party, more cynical than me, understand our online voting process.

Sudbury Steve said...

@Bluegreenblogger. Wow. I don't think it's ever been suggested that I'm not "cynical enough". I'll keep that one in mind. You raise some valid points, but from reading my posts, you must know that I'm hardly a cheerleader for the current governance group, espeically when they have tried to circumvent our rules. In this case, though, there is no circumvention per se. They're taking the issue to the membership, and if the membership wants to change the Constitution, so be it. Is the membership being told the right story? No, they're not. The reasons for change are political. I might not have been around all that long, and I might not be privy to all sorts of inside information, but if you go looking a lot of this stuff is easy to catch a whiff of.

I've indicated my reasons to support the current leadership in other posts, but here they are again. I believe this Party will be at risk of heading back to the fringes should we fail to elect someone in the next federal election. Right now, I think Elizabeth May has the best shot, and I agree with decisions which have been made to try at all costs to get her elected.

If we fail to gain any seats in the next election, we're going to likely dump our leader, and a large number of members will dissapear with her. An ex-Green Party Leader Elizabeth May will still have some political life left in her. What do you think might happen? She takes herself and her supporters to another Party. Even if she doesn't continue on in politics, what's left of the Green Party will be left divided, in debt, and unable to mount an effective campaign before sliding into political irrelevancy.

One last thing: what you indicated about the Constitutional change setting up a "leader for life" scenario does have some resonance, and is of concern. You point to the GPO, which has this sort of "leadership review" model. I think that the Federal NDP might also have something like this, and one could certainly suggest that Jack Layton has become a bit of a leader for life. Your concerns here should not be discounted by anyone. I agree, fixed terms are better from a democratic perspective. My concerns are more political. Anyway, it is something to watch out for. Other parties, like the Liberals, have found interesting and innovative ways to ensure that they do not find themselves with an unpopular "leader for life".

Sudbury Steve said...

@Volkov, yes the timing is cynical and political. I really do believe that our governing body anticipated an election happening last fall, which would explain why they didn't want to open this can of worms up in Pictou in 2009. It was only when Ignatieff's threats to bring down the government (made just a few doors down from where I live here in Sudbury, in late August 2009) fizzled did this issue begin to be looked at. Unfortunately, the first looks were for ways to circumvent the process.

So I see the motions now being brought forward for purely political reasons, and I'm not at all happy with the "spin" that I've been seeing, either. But since this change is one that I feel is necessary, I have to support it. But my support is purely for political reasons, and for the much smaller matter of creating a little bit of flexibility in our Constitution, but I acknowledge the former is much more paramount in my mind than the latter.

@Mark, I agree we could use some more organizing tools, and I'll be pushing for that sort of thing after the next election when we've elected one or several Green MP's. If we haven't elected anyone, well, I'd like to wait to see the dust begin to settle before trying to make my priority the Party's priority, because if what I think will happen after a shut-out actually occurs, the Party may have bigger priorities than hiring back some of our organizers.

By the way, our Edmonton-based Organizer was in town a few weeks ago. Now I'm not suggesting that this was anything more than a 'getting to know you' deal, and little in the way of organizing actually occurred, but we did recruit a few new members, and a promising candidate for neighbouring Nickel Belt also came forward. These little anecdotes are not to suggest that I believe everything is under control here in Sudbury with regards to our organizing needs being met, only that I'm relatively satisfied with the results of the extremely limited resources which have been made available. Much more work remains to be done, and we need the tools to do it.

Which reminds me, some of the motions being proposed for the BGM will actually take away a number of the tools we local EDA's need to build strong and healthy EDA's. These "Benmurgi Motions" which I've blogged about have been sponsored by some on Fed Council. They are a real threat to our ability to organize locally. I'm going to be spending my time trying to make sure they are defeated.

==

OK, that's almost all I've got for now. Again, I want to express my extreme disappointment and frustration over Sylvie Lemiuex's premature leadership challenge. She will now become the villain in our leadership narrative, and she's shot herself in the foot as to ever becoming a "serious" contender with this sophomoric, divisive political ploy. Strong words, yes, but her decision evoked some pretty strong feelings in me.

This hand hasn't been well-played, and those of you looking for a change in leadership should recognize the consequences of Sylvie's actions. They will not bring you any closer to changing the leadership. They will instead provoke our membership to change the Constitution and to keep the current leadership on until the next election.

It might be suggested that Sylvie Lemiuex's stepping forward at this time is a great gift to the leadership of this Party.

GPC Observer said...

This blog (not so succinctly) summarizes why Sudbury Steve is more politically saavy than anyone on the Report on Greens/Sylvie Lemieux team.

But not like anyone comes here for succinct analysis.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Steve!

Chris KN said...

As an outside observer, I have to say that Steve is 100% right on this matter. This Sylvie character has every right to say she wants to be leader of your party, but it was a dumb move for her and a harmful move for the party that she wants to lead.

There is no doubt that Ms. May and Federal Council are handling this issue poorly, but you don't become the leader of a party by trying to stab your leader in the back so publicly.

My guess would be that she is not very serious about wanting to be leader. Or she's being used by anti-May members of the party to force Ms. May out, likely in favor of another candidate, like Frank de Jong, who can step up and be portrayed as a healer.

All this for the leadership of a party with no seat and no hope of getting a seat makes for one entertaining summer sideshow, though.

shavluk said...

Sorry butt he opposite is now true Steve
I believe the leadership contest would have died in the first day of the convention and now cant
elley may damaged the vote process and caused anyone to step forward to say many things by announcing this
To those not just thinking of one election demanding our constitution be followed is very important
You obviously do not and that is why you see it that way
I disagree and say elley may should have followed the rules and just won 4 more years
Instead her arrogance will and should cause her defeat

Your disagreeing with the rules of our constitution is no reason to support open and malicious tampering with it

what hypocrisy by many of you

check the pulse of the party..it is almost dead...and its elley mays fault alone !!!

Anonymous said...

Egad, Franks a nice enough guy I even like him but he's a little too wild eyed for the mainstream,, I only joined the GPO because he was replaced by a more sedate and sellable leader.

I would instantly direct all my energy to the GPO if Frank took over the GPC and I think a good portion of the EDA would follow me.

Anonymous said...

I disagree with you Steve and frankly you sound like an EMay apologist.

In terms of how this has been played... Sylvie's team is comprised of Greens who worked on both Elizabeth May and David Chernushenko's leadership teams in 2006. It is a merger of some of the best political minds in the party and a merger that should have happened four years ago. People who have proven track records of political success in the Green Party and in other parties before joining the Greens.

Her team has more experience in politics right now than the party has in its head office. All of whom are volunteers. Why? Because they believe its time to put the infighting behind us, its time for the party to come together behind a leader that has a vision for Canada that the majority of Canadians actually want to hear and believe in. I don't know how that can be characterized as a mis-step? Leadership contest or no leadership contest, GPC members need to have an open discussion on the future of their party. Before Sylvie announced her intentions, that wasn't going to happen.

For your information Ms. May has been aware of Sylvie's interest in running for the leadership of the party for at least six months now. Viewed in that context, EMay's email to the membership 'targeting Silvie's motion for defeat' on June 29th should be viewed in a different light.

I don't know what your political experience is other than writing on this blog, but I know I've never heard of you and I've been around the party for six years, run a number of campaigns... etc. Just because I don't know you, does that make you any less of a valued member of this party?

I suggest you stop trying to criticize something that is obvious. Greens want a leader who is like them... someone who is honest and who can be trusted to act in the best interest of the party and its members at all times. Sylvie Lemieux (www.sylvielemiuex.ca) is that leader. She is highly qualified, ethical to a fault, knowledgeable on a wide number of issues, bilingual, energetic, engaging, easy to work with and a lot of fun to be around. She is in the process of writing a book and when this is all over, Canadians will know Sylvie Lemieux just as well as they know Elizabeth May.

Over the four years that this regime has been in power they have proven to be anything but honest and trustworthy. They sold the party down the river in the 2008 campaign and this little manipulation of the Constitution to lengthen their term in office is par for the course for these people.

I for one have had enough and I know many Greens who agree with me, so no... this is not a small group of malcontents... its a large group, many of whom are highly skilled professionals, who want their party to do a much better job of representing their values and vision for Canada at the polls. "Vote Liberal" doesn't quite cut it.

Anonymous said...

I disagree with you Steve and frankly you sound like an EMay apologist.

In terms of how this has been played... Sylvie's team is comprised of Greens who worked on both Elizabeth May and David Chernushenko's leadership teams in 2006. It is a merger of some of the best political minds in the party and a merger that should have happened four years ago. People who have proven track records of political success in the Green Party and in other parties before joining the Greens.

Her team has more experience in politics right now than the party has in its head office. All of whom are volunteers. Why? Because they believe its time to put the infighting behind us, its time for the party to come together behind a leader that has a vision for Canada that the majority of Canadians actually want to hear and believe in. I don't know how that can be characterized as a mis-step?

For your information Ms. May has been aware of Sylvie's interest in running for the leadership of the party for at least six months now. Viewed in that context, EMay's email to the membership 'targeting Silvie's motion for defeat' on June 29th should be viewed in a different light.

I don't know what your political experience is other than writing on this blog, but I know I've never heard of you and I've been around the party for six years, run a number of campaigns... etc. Just because I don't know you, does that make you any less of a valued member of this party?

I suggest you stop trying to criticize something that is obvious. Greens want a leader who is like them... someone who is honest and who can be trusted to act in the best interest of the party and its members at all times. Sylvie Lemieux (www.sylvielemiuex.ca) is that leader. She is highly qualified, ethical to a fault, knowledgeable on a wide number of issues, bilingual, energetic, engaging, easy to work with and a lot of fun to be around.

Over the four years that this regime has been in power they have proven to be anything but honest and trustworthy. They sold the party down the river in the 2008 campaign and this little manipulation of the Constitution to lengthen their term in office is par for the course for these people.

I for one have had enough and I know many Greens who agree with me, so no... this is not a small group of malcontents... its a large group of past and present Greens, many of whom are professionals, who want their party to do a much better job of representing their values at the polls.

Anonymous said...

I disagree with you Steve and frankly you sound like an EMay apologist. In terms of how this has been played... Sylvie's team is comprised of Greens who worked on both Elizabeth May and David Chernushenko's leadership teams in 2006. It is a merger of some of the best political minds in the party and a merger that should have happened four years ago. People who have proven track records of political success in the Green Party and in other parties before joining the Greens. Her team has more experience in politics right now than the party has in its head office. All of whom are volunteers. Why? Because they believe its time to put the infighting behind us, its time for the party to come together behind a leader that has a vision for Canada that the majority of Canadians actually want to hear and believe in. I don't know how that can be characterized as a mis-step? For your information Ms. May has been aware of Sylvie's interest in running for the leadership of the party for at least six months now. Viewed in that context, EMay's email to the membership 'targeting Silvie's motion for defeat' on June 29th should be viewed in a different light.I don't know what your political experience is other than writing on this blog, but I know I've never heard of you and I've been around the party for six years, run a number of campaigns... etc. Just because I don't know you, does that make you any less of a valued member of this party? I suggest you stop trying to criticize something that is obvious. Greens want a leader who is like them... someone who is honest and who can be trusted to act in the best interest of the party and its members at all times. Sylvie Lemieux (www.sylvielemiuex.ca) is that leader. She is highly qualified, ethical to a fault, knowledgeable on a wide number of issues, bilingual, energetic, engaging, easy to work with and a lot of fun to be around. Over the four years that this regime has been in power they have proven to be anything but honest and trustworthy. They sold the party down the river in the 2008 campaign and this little manipulation of the Constitution to lengthen their term in office is par for the course for these people.

I for one have had enough and I know many Greens who agree with me, so no... this is not a small group of malcontents... its a large group of highly skilled professionals who want their party to do a much better job of representing their values at the polls.

Anonymous said...

I disagree with you Steve and frankly you sound like an EMay apologist to me.

In terms of how this has been played... Sylvie's team is comprised of Greens who worked on both Elizabeth May and David Chernushenko's leadership teams in 2006. It is a merger of some of the best political minds in the party and a merger that should have happened four years ago but didn't because of the over sized egos currently running the party. These are people who have proven track records of political success in the Green Party and in other parties before joining the Greens.

Her team has more experience in politics right now than the party has in its head office. All of whom are volunteers. Why? Because they believe its time to put the infighting behind us, its time for the party to come together behind a leader that has a vision for Canada that the majority of Canadians actually want to hear and believe in. So, I don't know how you can characterize this as a mis-step? It is a response to not being provided her constitutional right to run for the leadership of the party.

For your information Ms. May has been aware of Sylvie's interest in running for the leadership of the party for at least six months now. Viewed in that context, EMay's email to the membership 'targeting Silvie's motion for defeat' on June 29th should be viewed in a different light.

Continued in next post...

Anonymous said...

Continued from previous post...

I don't know what your political experience is other than writing on this blog, but I know I've never heard of you and I've been around the party for six years, run a number of campaigns... etc. Just because I don't know you, does that make you any less of a valued member of this party?

I suggest you stop trying to criticize something that is obvious. Greens want a leader who is like them... someone who is honest and who can be trusted to act in the best interest of the party and its members at all times.
Someone who has come up from within the party, has worked hard, suffered as they have, etc.

Sylvie Lemieux (www.sylvielemiuex.ca) is that leader. She is highly qualified, ethical to a fault, knowledgeable on a wide number of issues, bilingual, energetic, engaging, easy to work with and a lot of fun to be around.

Over the four years that this regime has been in power they have proven to be anything but honest and trustworthy. They sold the party down the river in the 2008 campaign and this little manipulation of the Constitution to lengthen their term in office is par for the course for these people.

I for one have had enough and I know many Greens who agree with me, so no... this is not a small group of malcontents... its a large group of present and past Greens who want their party to do a much better job of representing their values and vision for a better Canada at the polls. Because "Vote Liberal" doesn't quite cut it.

GPC Observer said...

Anonymous who clearly has trouble posting things on the Interwebs writes:

"Because [the Sylvie Lemieux campaign] believe[s] its (sic) time to put the infighting behind us"

Which is precisely why they've been driving the infighting within the GPC for well over a year now.

"IT'S ALL BEEN TO BRING GREENS TOGETHER! WHY can't you people SEE THAT!"

shavluk said...

Sorry but posting experience aside I agree with the anonymous poster in most of what is said.


You? not a chance

I also explained for a long time and was front and center for some of the dirty tactics played by the e may regime.
Dirty cowardly moves covered by a damaged ego and unearned sense of self importance.
Some one who broke our constitution when ever it suited her and even killed the sound from the webcast as we candidates went to speak in Pictou NS.

Some one who explained our constitution as merely a guide in BC Supreme Court and tried to cover her own proven lies on Sworn Court Affidavits by blaming council like they were idiots.

Only changing a 150 year old law stopped the green party from being on the hook to me for a million dollar lawsuit award june 9 2010 e mays own birthday.

e may then libeled me again on the parties front page that same day
Go read it.

I have now appealed this horrible judgement and will also now sue again for the newest libel at the green site and so much more I really do say just quit elley as its over !

Contrary to all those who ignored me since sept 2008 many are and have been listening all along.

And soon they will do more than just listen.

I warned you all that it was happening.

I for one will dance with glee when karma does come to collect.

I still curse all of you other game players and silent hypocrites who sat stupidly silent during my entire ordeal and personal torture.

I just feel sorry for your type.

We will be united as a party or destroyed and these days its not just e may with the power to do this no matter what she thinks or thought.

Some are awake and have paid attention as we see.

Never since my jail for a crime I did not commit have I had such hatred to some one person.
Never as much as I now do this e may after all the pain and suffering myself and my family has now gone through just because of mays own malicious ignorant egotistical moves.

I will never ever rest until I personally repay her brand of kindness.

Bravo ! Sylvie Lemieux


If e may beats us back at the convention she will then inherit an empty party.
I mean almost just her as I am sure steve and a couple of other game players from the Rahim Jaffer school of equality and truth will still be with her on the trip to no where

Katrina said...

Dear Steve,

My mother is not an unknown nor unaccomplished Green.

She has worked countless hours for the party and has held numerous meetings and attended countless events with the greens in our city to help the growth of the party.

She has helped build the Green platform to move it beyond a 'protest' group to a serious political party. she has also helped miss May on numerous occassions.

Also, being a true biligual, she can reach ALL of Canada. Après tout, nous vivons dans un pays de deux langues, et le public francophone a le droit d'être servi autant que son voisin anglophone.

I hope that your rant has releaved you and I respect your opinions, but please, when you speak of my mother, do not use derogatory terms. That is all I ask.