UPDATED: Ms. May closes another door


From the Inkless emailbox. This looks fairly definitive and given its timing and its phasing it is, I think, significant:

Strategic voting makes no sense, says May

On Tuesday, Canada needs to elect Green Party MPs, leader Elizabeth May said today.

“Media reports and suggestions from other parties that I am urging strategic voting across the country or that backroom deals are being made are complete nonsense,” Ms. May said. “As I have said over and over, strategic voting is generally not a sound strategy at all and I do not support it. Canada needs to elect Green MPs. “

Ms. May was responding in particular to the headline and opening of a Globe and Mail story that directly contradicts what she said to the reporter.

“I clearly said that voting strategically as advice is pretty useless. I also said: ‘Suggesting one should jump away from the Green Party is very bad advice indeed.’

“We have a strong team of candidates across Canada. Every one of them is working hard to win and this much we know for sure: Canada needs Green MPs. I intend to win in my riding of Central Nova and I want to be joined by a strong caucus of MPs, like Adriane Carr in Vancouver Centre, Blair Wilson, Mike Nagy, Dick Hibma, , John Fryer, Huguette Allen and others. We are running strong campaigns across this country.”

“The best outcome of the election will be the defeat of the Harper government and the election of as many Green MPs as possible.”

Ms. May noted that support for her leadership, and the Green Party and its forward-looking policies continue to rise.

“Perhaps what is worrying the other parties is the strong support the Green Party has received from Canadians in this election. In this election we will elect our first MPs.

“I want to do politics in a much different way, with collaboration, civility and respect. But I am not making deals with other parties, and the Greens are not in discussions with other parties.

“I will say it once again so absolutely no one can be confused or misled: I want Canadians to elect Green MPs.”

UPDATE: You will perhaps not be surprised to learn Mrs. May closed this door because her own flapping jaw had seemed to leave it open. Not for the first time.


UPDATED: Ms. May closes another door

  1. Well, as a Green organizer in Ottawa, I’m glad we’ve sorted this out.

    Elizabeth wants to do politics in a different way, so – on behalf of many Green organizers – I suggest she move to a different planet, where they do politics differently.

    On this planet, party leaders work hard to elect their candidates.

  2. Oh, thanks for context, John Ogilvie. Will update accordingly.

  3. I don’t think you need to update. The underlying current was in your earlier posts when you reluctantly reported on the Green Party.

    If I’m not mistaken, JO was the individual turfed through E May’s unprecedented intervention in a local Ottawa GP nomination meeting.

  4. and yet does she?

    “The best outcome of the election will be the defeat of the Harper government and the election of as many Green MPs as possible.”

    Ulm, shouldnt it be the election of as many Green MP’s as possible so as to defeat the Harper government. No to quibble but when you place the defeat of the government as the primary objective then doesnt that overshadow the secondary request to elect Green MP’s said in a passive sense, “as possible”

    So which is it, elect Green MP’s or defeat the Harper government? Confused, you wont be after the episode of……..

  5. May changes her mind depending upon which way the wind blows. You can’t believe a word out of her mouth.

  6. I feel like the grandfather in Moonstruck, crying in the last reel. “I’m so confused!”

  7. I’m not a big follower of Green Party politics. Any chance we’ll see a leadership review?

  8. Yeah, best to stick to the deeper issues like biased media, commenting on biased media, supported by biased media.

    Potter seems to be setting a new record for comments.

  9. I for one am running out of steak knives.

  10. Release of another daily tracking poll no doubt will divert attention while you restock.

    Make one up if you don’t have one. Just add one here and there, drop one elsewhere. Works every time. Just ask Nik (promo mgr. Honest Ed’s)

  11. ~Mr.~ May?

  12. Whoopsie. Fixed.

  13. Well I guess two Green candidates endorsed the liberals in Québec this Thursday. Mr. Dion defended Ms. May’s inclusion in the debate when Jack Layton and Stephen Harper refused. Ms. May said she endorsed Dion for Prime Minister. Well the mathematical reality is that the NDP and the Greens are only helping Harper. It’s unfortunate because with Dion this country would really turn Green! Go Greens and NDP… Go play your politics as usual and fell the words “Prime Minister Stephen Harper”

  14. That press release contains various errors, such as: 1. Today is not Tuesday 2. The release date on the website differs on the main page and that of the release itself. 3. The first line doesn’t make sense, if it was already mentioned that it was Tuesday that May spoke why would they go on within a few words to say “Today”; it just looks like poor editing. 4. There’s other errors that show the press release was rushed.

    The Green Party’s organization is worried. This press release is a copy and paste job of old May quotes in an effort to prevent other candidates from dropping out.

  15. Your first error is an error of comprehension, Scott Ross: the release is arguing that voters need to elect Green MPs on Tuesday — ie election day, which is indeed next Tuesday. But I take your broader point.

  16. “Well the mathematical reality is that the NDP and the Greens are only helping Harper.”

    If the Greens and NDP didn’t exist, the number of seats gained by the Liberals would be roughly equal to those gained by the Tories, even though the margin between the two parties would decrease.

    Case 1 – it isn’t that effective

    If you assign NDP and Green voters based on second choice preferences (I am using Ekos here) you get:

    Tory: 41.5% (+5.5% from poll)
    LPC: 34% (+10% from poll)
    Bloc: 11% (+1% from poll)
    It doesn’t add up to 100 because some people wouldn’t vote.

    Lets see if the seat counts change much?

    Just inputting the poll as is you get, roughly:
    CPC: 145
    LPC: 67
    NDP: 41
    BQ: 54
    IND: 1

    Now lets see what would happen without the NDP and Greens.

    CPC: 146
    LPC: 111
    BQ: 51

    Argument 2 – regionalism
    Huh, how can that be?

    Think of where the NDP runs second to the Conservatives – Hamilton, Windsor, Interior BC, Manitoba and Saskatchewan – many of which are swing regions.

    Indeed, Canadian politics are historically about region. A more sensible long-term strategy for the left would be to each pick a region and focus their efforts there (similar to the CDU-CSU in Germany). It could work for other ism’s too, as the parties focused on different demographic groups.

    Moreover, I’m not sure progressives want perpetual parliaments where the Bloc is kingmaker (considering that the Bloc is easily bought).

    Argument 3 – the money

    Also, right now election laws cap spending at 20 million dollars per party. It is not very hard to raise 20 million dollars (unless your name is Stephane Dion). Because there are four parties on the left, and one on the right, the right will always be outspent in a five-party system. It also doesn’t hurt to have four on one debates.

    Argument 4 – why a super-liberal party wouldn’t be too super

    The other thing is that without the NDP and Greens, the Liberals would gain an influx of members considerably to the left of the Liberal party as it stands. That would alienate the Liberals from swing voters and ensure the Conservatives do better than I have modeled here.

    Argument 5 – risk diversification

    Lets say a horrible scandal grips the Liberals, or any of the left-leaning parties such that they become unelectable – the right would win. With multiple parties, there is less of a risk that every party on the spectrum will simultaneously have some sort of meltdown scenario strike.

    Argument 6 – the historical record

    Canada had a effectively 2-party system from 1867-1921; and in 1930-35.

    The Conservatives won 9 elections while the Liberals won 5. The Liberals governed for 20 years, the Conservatives for 39.

    In all other elections (where third parties existed, and generally drew votes from the left), the Liberals won 18, the Conservatives 6. The Liberals governed for 62 years, the Conservatives for 17.

  17. Just curious as to why supporters of any party ever wishing to become elected would endorse strategic voting. Isn’t funding for future operations based on partially on votes and seats won? Isn’t your own cause diminished by conceding the fight to someone else? Why become anything more than a lobbyist if you don’t want a real voice in the house? If diversity of options requires more options than let the public decide otherwise lets have the left pull itself back together.

  18. Being from Cape Breton I have watched Lizzie May and her kookie clan for decades. She has always been a total nut case with a messianic streak. She is nor fit to lead anything let alone the country. Her erratic behavior should prove this. She elbowed her way into the debates playing the femisist card the way OJ played the race card. Worked like a charm. Also claimed she should be in debates because she was running candidates in every riding. Well none in mine(Datmouth-Cole Hrb.) Now apparently other Green cadidates are quiting to indorse Liberal candidates. Well this is really doing politics differently…I guess

Sign in to comment.