Categories: Canada

'I'm mildly curious about my future'

Elizabeth May takes aim at Saanich-Gulf Islands in what could be her last attempt to win a seat in the House

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, September 9, 2009 1:03am - 24 Comments

The party’s deputy leader, Adriane Carr, was recently quoted as saying that “for the first time ever, the Green party of Canada has written a campaign plan that is fully detailed.” May assures this was not an exaggeration—that the party was preoccupied with a set of by-elections last fall and wrong-footed when the Prime Minister launched a full election. And though she can no longer claim a sitting MP and nor count on the support of another party leader, she still believes she will be there when the leaders gather around a table and debate for the cameras.

On this, she takes comfort in recent polls. The Green party continues to win the theoretical allegiance of about 10 per cent of Canadians and, according to one recent survey, 41 per cent say they would like to see her win a seat in Parliament. That, she argues, demonstrates public interest, which justifies her presence.

Of course, when Canadians were last asked to confirm their support on paper, just seven per cent were so supportive of May’s side. And it is that conflict between perception and reality, hope and practicality, that continues to make May’s story so harrowing. All the more so now. The primary question—can she win?—remains. But it’s matched now with a more daunting follow-up—if not, what then? “Honestly, the thing that I fear most, and this is what I’ve said to Elizabeth, if she is declaring that this is the greenest riding in Canada … and she doesn’t win, what are we left with?” Penn says. “Her career is over. And I don’t want to see Elizabeth lost off the scene.”

May shoos away any talk of pressure. “I don’t even think about things like that,” she says. “The pressure I feel is around the Copenhagen summit coming up in December. The fact that we are running out of time to respond to the climate crisis. I don’t find politics particularly compelling as opposed to real life … My political fortunes are, honestly, in terms of my concerns, completely irrelevant.”

Discussion turns to other matters—how, for instance, the Greens would cut income taxes and employer contributions to employment insurance—then May is asked again to account for herself. For all the work she’s done, the effort put forth, and the possibility that it will all be for naught. May restates her thesis. “I think about the future quite a lot,” she says. “I think I think long term about the future more than other politicians, but unlike other politicians I don’t think the future is all about me.” Of course, she’s right. Except that it’s still her name on the ballot.

Pages: 1 2

Tags: Adriane Carr, Andrew Lewis, Blair Wilson, Briony Penn, Camille Labchuk, Elizabeth May, Gary Lunn, Glen Pearson, Green Party, greens, Losing Confidence, Peter MacKay, Renee Hetherington, saanich gulf islands, Stéphane Dion, Stuart Herzog

More by Aaron Wherry

Michael Former Green

My great sadness about this is that during the last election the Green party let slip through our fingers an opportunity to become a legitimate party on the national scene. Instead the Party leadership focused their effort on bashing Harper and 'raising profile and awareness'. We didn't need to raise awareness, we needed to grow credibility and elect an MP. There was a winnable riding in Nova Scotia. Halifax. Alexa McDonough had just retired, the polling gave a 3 way split with the Liberals and NDP on top. The riding was in Nova Scotia where she has historical roots and as an urban riding with 30,000+ students and no incumbent. She had a great opportunity to turn 30% of the vote into a seat. Too bad bashing Peter McKay and Stephen Harper was more important.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Well said. Unfortunately for the Green Party, Ms. May decided that jumping on the "ABC" bandwagon was more important than helping the Greens secure a winnable seat in the last election.

http://intensedebate.com/people/danby danby

For all her Harper bashing, the Green vote helps to divide the left and thus enables the his continuing reign.
I wish a new grassroots Conservative party would form and begin to siphon off the hard right vote that defaults to the Conservatives – this would somewhat level the playing field and open up some voting options. As it stands now, my reality involves supporting the Liberals just to unseat Mr Harper
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/danby danby

For all her Harper bashing, the Green vote helps to divide the left and thus enables his contined reign.
I wish a new grassroots Conservative party would form and begin to siphon off the hard right vote that defaults to the Conservatives – this would somewhat level the playing field and open up some voting options. As it stands now, my reality involves supporting the Liberals just to unseat Mr Harper

http://intensedebate.com/people/avr avr

I wish a new grassroots Conservative party would form and begin to siphon off the hard right vote

It did. It was called the Reform Party. Have you forgotten the "What's the difference between the Tory caucus and a pickup truck" jokes from 1993?

(Which is to say, be careful what you wish for. I'll bet you'd have rather had the mushy Red Tory PCs survive than what actually happened, and that wouldn't have been possible without the initial schism.)
http://intensedebate.com/people/avr avr

I wish a new grassroots Conservative party would form and begin to siphon off the hard right vote

It did. It was called the Reform Party. Have you forgotten the "What's the difference between the Tory caucus and a pickup truck" jokes from 1993?

(Which is to say, be careful what you wish for. I'll bet you'd have rather had the mushy Red Tory PCs survive than what actually happened, and that would have been less likely without the initial schism that proved the "hard right" is surprisingly electable in much of the country.)

hosertohoosier

You mean the hard right party that has not ended gay marriage, responded to a recession with a substantial stimulus, which cut the regressive GST, which banned income trusts (which are basically a corporate tax holiday), that increased arts funding every year (despite the bluster about cuts) and yes the same hard right party that is about to be defeated shortly after enriching EI?

Or do you mean the hard right party that gouged provincial transfers and government spending in the 90's, slashed corporate and income taxes in the 00's, and put committed substantial numbers of Canadian ground troops to the heaviest fighting since the Korean war?

http://intensedebate.com/people/TwoYen TwoYen

Aaron,
I don't often share your perspective on political issues but this time I completely agree with your analysis. I grew up in Victoria and graduated from university in Victoria and have worked on many election campaigns there, including Saanich. The Liberals cannot afford to support May (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) in any way after what Dion did last time. Moreover, the NDP vote will rebound after the pull-out or their candidate last time. The end result will be a Lunn victory.
http://intensedebate.com/people/avr avr

The Liberals cannot afford to support May (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) in any way

On that note, I'll be curious to hear what Ignatieff has to say about the inclusion of fringe parties in the leaders' debates.
Dot

Aaron, you spelled Hertzog wrong. It has a "t", just like wingnut or nutbar.

Careful, or he'll lodge one of these:
http://greenpolitics.ca/2009/09/my-complaint-to-e…

http://greenpolitics.ca/ Stuart Hertzog

Is that Dot plus "T" as in dotty?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Be_rad Be_rad

There's a fine balance to be maintained between the utility of protest parties or parties of conscience and mainstream parties in Canada. The outliers influence political outcomes, sometimes in their favour, sometimes to their own detriment. Without the NDP or Greens siphoning off voters, the Liberals might well be tempted to stay the course, not rock the boat, do nothing progressive or imaginative. With them, though, it is also clear that the largest portion of those voters would either support the Liberals or not vote at all.

On the other hand, the Reform Party had its role in re-orienting the conservative forces of Canada. But it did so at the cost of that wing's competitiveness for years.

And what is the cost nationally, if small parties either dominate a region (Reform, BQ) or generally bleed national support away from a legitimate contender for power? Does it serve our national identity to be so divided?

So my question to small party voters of the past or present, past or future, is: what is your tipping point? What causes you to "go mainstream" or, conversely, "go small"?
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Be_rad Be_rad

There's a fine balance to be maintained between the utility of protest parties or parties of conscience and mainstream parties in Canada. The outliers influence political outcomes, sometimes in their favour, sometimes to their own detriment. Without the NDP or Greens siphoning off voters, the Liberals might well be tempted to stay the course, not rock the boat, do nothing progressive or imaginative. In their absence, though, it is also clear that the largest portion of those voters would either support the Liberals or not vote at all, thereby altering electoral outcomes.

On the other hand, the Reform Party had its role in re-orienting the conservative forces of Canada. But it did so at the cost of that wing's competitiveness for years.

And what is the cost nationally, if small parties either dominate a region (Reform, BQ) or generally bleed national support away from a legitimate contender for power? Does it serve our national identity to be so divided?

So my question to small party voters of the past or present, past or future, is: what is your tipping point? What causes you to "go mainstream" or, conversely, "go small"?
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Be_rad Be_rad

There's a fine balance to be maintained between the utility of protest parties or parties of conscience and mainstream parties in Canada. The outliers influence political outcomes, sometimes in their favour, sometimes to their own detriment. Without the NDP or Greens siphoning off voters, the Liberals might well be tempted to stay the course, not rock the boat, do nothing progressive or imaginative. In their absence, though, it is also clear that the largest portion of those voters would either support the Liberals or not vote at all, thereby altering electoral outcomes.

On the other hand, the Reform Party had its role in re-orienting the conservative forces of Canada. But it did so at the cost of that wing's competitiveness for years.

And what is the cost nationally, if small parties either dominate a region (Reform, BQ) or generally bleed national support away from a legitimate contender for power? Does it serve our national identity to be so divided?

So my question to small party voters of the past or present, left or right, is: what is your tipping point? What causes you to "go mainstream" or, conversely, "go small"?
knick

It baffles me why the Greens and NDP, neither of which is likely to form government in the foreseeable future, insist on making it possible for Harper to remain in power.

wayne moores

Well in the case of Lizzie May, it's all about Lizzie, always has been, always will be. It's no accident she chose a riding about as far away from her adopted home of Cape Breton Island as you can get. The people there know her all to well and wouldn't elect her to be a dog catcher. She has made a lifelong career of throwing friends and associates overboard for her own self agrandisment. Just like she did in the last election when she told green supporters to vote Liberal, thus stabbing her own candidates in the back while she had an agreement with Dion to be put in a Liberal cabinet and be given lifelong access to the trough(oops, I mean Senate). Why else would she have been running in a riding she couldn't win(Central Nova) against a candidate no one could beat(Peter MacKay). Cheers.
hosertohoosier

In practice Liberals have actually governed further to the right of conservatives (I make that case on my blog: http://hosertohoosier.blogspot.com). Labour laws, minimum wages, employment insurance, the wheat board, the CBC, and the precursor to medicare were all Conservative initiatives. Canada has among the world's most liberal abortion laws thanks in part to the Tories (Mulroney did not push for moderate restrictions on abortion that would have been popular).

The point of the NDP is to impose a cost on the Liberals for moving too far to the right. The strategy has been reasonably effective. In the 90's, when the NDP was not an electoral threat to the Liberals, for instance, we had the most fiscally conservative government in our history.

The Greens, however, are indeed a pointless party. The Liberals only need one party to prevent them from sliding to the left. Moreover, the Greens do not offer voters an alternative – they are just NDP'ers that don't like poor people (exception: in its earlier incarnation and in Ontario, the Greens are/were an interesting eco-capitalist party). They split the vote with the Liberals, and do not offer new ideas. Elizabeth May's participation in the debates, for instance, was an utter crock. She spent the whole time attacking Harper, instead of demonstrating how she would differ from the other parties.

http://www.camillelabchuk.ca Camille

I feel compelled to call out Briony Penn on her assessment that with “two strong women candidates running on basically the same platform, Gary Lunn’s going to laugh all the way to Ottawa again.” First off, the only thing laughable here is Penn’s assertion that the Liberal platform is in any way similar to the Greens. Is she even talking about the same Liberals here? The Liberals whose leader Michael Ignatieff trips all over himself to declare his undying love and support for the tar sands? The Liberals who cannibalized their last leader (Dion) who actually did have some green cred? Get real.

These comments are merely the usual garbage talking points old-line parties use to confront the Greens — that Greens will somehow split the vote and elect Conservatives. If we’re going to tread down this tired old path, I would simply point out that Elizabeth May’s two previous second place finishes would actually indicate, under that logic, that it’s other parties who “split the vote”.

Dot

Looks like Camille Labchuk's media response team is down to one member: herself!

http://www2.macleans.ca/2008/05/14/hello-media-re…
wayne moores

In the last electon there was only Lizzie and Peter Mackay running since she had a backroom deal with the nutty professor(Dion) and did not have to face a Liberal candidate. So she basically came in last in a two horse race. Big whoop! I just love how the press gives her a free ride and wildly celebrates defeat after defeat as a great victory for the Green Party and Lizzie. Why doesn't she run in Cape Breton? After all, with all her wonderful "achievments" there you would think she would be a shoe in. Here's a hint, if she were running in a 100 horse race there, she would come in about 99th. Get ready for another 6 or 7% in the coming election. Perhaps she can run up North, as she indicated in her ramblings, everyone is crazy about her up there. Ya, right.

kim morton

I don't know why she decided to come to the west coast. We don't want her any more than the east coast did. She does not represent the views of working people.