"It should be obvious to anyone reading this article why the B.C. Greens have taken great steps to emphasize that we are not formally affiliated with the Green Party of Canada. There is a movement within our party to change our name after the next B.C. election. For the record, neither I, nor most of my team, are members of the Green Party of Canada. The B.C. Greens will not let ourselves be hijacked by extremist fringe elements." —B.C. Green party leader, Andrew Weaver

So there! Take that, Green Party of Canada!

Such was Andrew Weaver’s response to the 24 "extremists" who signed an op-ed published in the Tyee, attacking him for his "misguided" opposition to their resolution urging an international boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel for its occupation of Palestinian territory.

That would be the so-called BDS resolution, recently adopted over Elizabeth May’s ardent objections at the Green party’s national convention.

It so humiliated her, she nearly quit as party leader. But as we all know, she ultimately decided to soldier on.

Good thing, too.

She is undoubtedly the best thing that the federal Green party has going for it—a vital voice for environmental and other undervalued issues in Ottawa. And an effective MP for her constituents, of which I am proudly one.

Anyway, happily for those Greens who actually care about electing more members in future, May is now appealing to her party’s broader membership to overturn that "polarizing and divisive" initiative, as she characterized it.

The party’s federal council has agreed to hold a special meeting aimed in part at reinstating "the pre-2016 process of holding a ratification vote open to all members for all policies adopted at conventions or general meetings of members".

The BDS debacle highlights the Greens’ double standard on direct democracy

The irony of that rearguard measure is as palpable as the Greens’ hypocrisy on electoral reform, a key issue that it also hopes to advance at that special meeting, which was upstaged at their convention by the BDS fiasco.

In regard to the latter, turns out, the party honchos are no longer too keen on allowing the convention delegates to decide issues and policies on behalf of all members, if they don’t go the leader’s way.

Make no mistake, it is only because the BDS resolution flew in the face of May’s wishes—and true enough, also common sense—that the party brass rightly concluded it is likely not representative of most Green members’ wishes.

So they now want to restore the previous ratification process that gives all members a say on the policies and procedures adopted by the party on their behalf.

This from the bunch who want to replace Canada’s first-past-the-post electoral system with some form of proportional representation, without giving all Canadians a right to vote on how their votes should count.

How curious. As I’ve previously written about at length in the Straight, like the federal Liberals and NDP, the Greens don’t trust the voters enough to make that decision for themselves.

They want the current crop of supposedly "unrepresentative" members of Parliament to cast that vote on our behalf, to change the electoral system we’ve had since Confederation, ostensibly, to make it more representative.

Because those same politicians say that the Parliament to which they have been elected is somehow illegitimate and not reflective of the electorate’s wishes or of the various parties’ electoral support.

Yet just this once, only they can be trusted to decide how Canada’s electoral system should be changed, assuming enough of them agree on that new model that will be imposed on us all, the people they are elected to serve.

And so, those same self-serving politicians who all perceive their preferred new electoral model to be in their own party’s interests should be the only ones who get to vote on the matter.

Because they fear that we voters would frustrate their desired end—which is demonstrably for our own good, dontcha know—if we were allowed to actually vote on how we wish to be represented.

Got that?

I’ll say this for the Grits, Greens, and Dippers who are so passionately committed to that twisted logic: they make a good case for their argument that the current Parliament is not at all representative of the people’s wishes and interests.

That is, they will if Trudeau, May and Mulcair actually go ahead with their scheme to change Canada’s electoral system over the objections of the vast majority of Canadians who very much want a direct say on whatever new system might be proposed.

After all, according to one recent Forum poll, 65 percent of Canadians agree "Canada should have a national referendum on electoral reform before any changes are made to the way we elect our MPs."

In fact, the poll suggests that some 63 percent of those who are inclined to vote Green, 56 percent of Liberal voters, and 75 percent of NDP voters all agree with that statement. And 59 percent of the British Columbians sampled in that poll also agreed with it.

But I digress.

"Stupid is as stupid does" makes friends fall out

The point is, the federal Green Party’s council now wants to restore the process that would give all party members a vote on resolutions adopted at conventions by their delegates.

It wants to do that to prevent its unrepresentative convention delegates from "hijacking" the party, as Weaver put it.

Good luck, I say, despite that party’s double standard on direct democracy in refusing to embrace that same principle to protect all voters from having their current electoral system "hijacked" by the very Parliament that the Greens say is fundamentally undemocratic in its makeup.

And kudos as well to Elizabeth May for firing her three "shadow critics" who were signatories to that Tyee article that added insult to injury.

Not just to Andrew Weaver, but to her as well, to say nothing of the "Green" brand across Canada.

I mean, it’s not like May hasn’t already been brutally embarrassed by those senior members of her national campaign team who so discredited her party with their 2015 federal election shenanigans.

Even before the BDS debacle, May desperately needed to show that she is capable of getting a grip on her party after Canada Elections' damning indictment of its dishonest election flyer, distributed in Victoria only a day before the vote.

You can read all about it here, in the so-called compliance agreement that the Green Party of Canada’s executive director, Emily McMillan, entered into on behalf of her party with Canada Elections.

It enabled the party and its national election team to avoid any potential prosecution for breaches of the Canada Election Act related to that incident.

To recap, that fraudulent flyer stated, "It's a Two-Way Race—the Choice is Yours Victoria—Latest Polling Results," citing polling numbers that the Greens’ top campaign staff knew were neither true, nor accurate.

As Canada Elections concluded, that "erroneous presentation of the polling data as being the latest results when subsequent polling data was trending down—was misleading."

It "constituted an attempt to induce a person to vote or not to vote for a particular candidate using a pretense or contrivance, and as such, an offence under paragraph 482(b) of the Act".

To this day, as far as I am aware, no one has been fired or punished for that "deliberate use of unreliable polling data", which "did not meet the informational requirements of the [Canada Elections] Act." 

Not that May had anything at all to do with it.

She did not. And I know that she did not approve of that abuse of the voters’ trust that was committed by her party’s national campaign manager, aided by its executive director and its deputy executive director.

No doubt May was as appalled as I was that those two somehow failed to read the "email advisory from Elections Canada reminding opinion poll sponsors and distributors of the mandatory information to be included with published election survey results".

Hard to believe, really, given that it was sent out to them 11 days before the flyer hit voters’ doorsteps. Especially given how vitally important anyone remotely competent in such positions would regard any email from Elections Canada.

That incident made May look horribly weak and ineffectual, reluctant as she was to take the type of decisive action that voters deserved in holding the offending parties properly accountable and responsible for their lack of judgement and indefensible actions.

It was over a month ago that party issued the following brief statement:

"We commit to investigate why our existing safeguards were ineffective and to improve our system of checks, balances and accountability. Our President will report the findings of the investigation to party members and all Canadians."

I await the results of that review with interest. Sadly, however, there was no commitment to hold the party’s own senior staff and campaign manager to the highfalutin' standards that the Greens are so quick to demand of others.

May’s response to her party’s own transgressions was a far cry from her June 2 news release calling on Elections Canada to "re-open its investigation into robocalls during the 2008 election in Saanich-Gulf Islands."

"It is alarming to me and to many of my constituents that voter fraud may have been committed in our riding and no one has been caught. I am sure we agree that the integrity of our elections must be beyond reproach," May wrote in her letter to Elections Canada, RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson, the commissioner of Canada Elections, and Canada’s director of public prosecutions.　

There sure wasn’t the same enthusiasm for such accountability when the flyer story broke.

May sure didn’t threaten to quit as leader if the party failed to take appropriate steps in living up to the principles it so piously espouses. No heads rolled.

By contrast, at least her swift action in firing her three shadow critics for abusing their official positions in attacking a provincial party leader who shares the Green brand was a welcome display of leadership.

For those individuals and the other signatories of the Tyee op-ed who so publicly slammed Andrew Weaver, it seems that "sorry" was the hardest word.

In fact, they felt that they had nothing whatsoever to apologize for. If anything, they felt it should be Weaver who apologizes to them for repudiating their crusade to single out Israel for economic punishment for its ongoing "sins" of occupation.

If their BDS resolution has the effect of leading some—OK, a majority of Canadians—to "mistakenly" conclude that a good number of Green Party delegates may be anti-Semitic, so be it.

They can’t help it if we who are repulsed by that initiative are so hopelessly "misguided".

Or if their party looks to be run by the "extremist fringe elements" that Weaver rightly wants to distance from his technically separate, but functionally aligned B.C. Green party.

Romancing a name change for the B.C. Green party

The furor the BDS resolution has generated for both its substance and its implicit repudiation of May’s leadership has been remarkable for a party of so little national consequence.

Again, leave it to Weaver to drive the point home, as he did in an email to some of the individuals who signed the piece posted in the Tyee.

"Rest assured, I will be publicly distancing the BC Greens from GPC shortly," he admonished them. "You should pat yourself on the back for destroying any credibility left with the GPC. They are utterly irrelevant now in Canadian politics."

Zounds!

For most Green party members, it’s a tragedy of Shakespearean proportions.

For the media, the other parties and the Twitterverse, it’s the gift that keeps on giving.

But what of Weaver’s potential name change, to rebrand his provincial party as distinct from its federal kissing cousins?

Romeo, Romeo. You beautiful romantic.

I love the idea, if properly executed.

After all, what's in a name?

That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Or would it?

Would a Green as a Liberal, as a Democrat, or as a Progressive not also smell as sweet to those sniffing around the ripe political orchards for a new party to love and hold as their own?

Lo, fair Elizabeth, Weaver now cries.

'Tis but thy family’s name that is my enemy!

And so a new party name is now called for, to be "new baptized" as the essence of all that is Green, yet without its colour, or its more maliferous odours.

Careful now, Andrew. Here’s the thing.

Whether you know it or not, your party’s name is everything.

Or at least its Green brand is.

Certainly that party name can be improved, to broaden its appeal, to expand its brand promise and to distinguish the B.C. Greens from their federal and international namesakes.

Purely a platonic relationship, you understand, born of convenience and not bed-sharing.

Not that anyone who knows anything about Canadian politics really believes that the federal Greens and provincial Greens are as removed from one another as Weaver and their respective constitutions and policies suggest.

Their memberships largely overlap.

Their political appeals and voter bases, such as they are, are almost identical.

They share many of the same activists, volunteers, and committed believers.

Yet the same was equally true of the old B.C. Reform Party and federal Reform Party.

Same name, different parties, in theory. But much the same for all intents and purposes.

Ditto for the B.C. Liberals and the federal Liberals, especially during the "Wilson years" and to a lesser extent, today under Christy Clark’s tenure.

Sure, they are completely separate parties, a fact not lost on most voters under Gordon Campbell’s leadership, as he converted his B.C. Liberals into variously progressive Conservatives.

Even today they are Socreds by another name, which time and circumstance dictated would smell more sweet after that party’s rot set in.

As for the NDP, well, they are one in the same, federally and provincially. And proudly so.

The Greens however, are different.

The word "Green" is not so much a political ideology on the left-right continuum as it is a value statement that straddles all ideologies to suggest environmentally responsible conduct.

It’s not liberal, conservative or socialist, as such. It’s just Green. Meaning, champions of sustainable growth. Defenders of the environment. Socially conscious, of course, but with a decidedly "green" conscious sensibility that informs its policies to the core.

Lose the word "Green" and what are you left with?

The Progressive Democrat Alliance?

Another pointless attempt to rename a party as something equally liberal, conservative, socially democratic and broadly centrist as the traditional names we associate with those who hope to replace the mainstream parties that already own those brands?

Trust me, Andrew. Been there, done that.

Much as I see the value in a name change for your party, if Gordon Wilson couldn’t make a go of it in trying to re-appropriate his liberals from Campbell’s not-so-hostile takeover, trying to reposition your party as the new and improved Liberals or New Democrats is a bad bet.

Rebranding the B.C. Green party

Nevertheless, there is a need to reposition the B.C. Green party as something different than its federal counterparts.

There is a need to broaden its voter universe by at once appealing to the Green values that are ultimately the B.C. Green party’s "unique selling proposition" as the party most committed to sustainable growth.

It is the only party that hasn’t pussyfooted around in its opposition to carbon-intensive growth and to the fossil-fuel economy that is so central to Christy Clark’s LNG pipe dream and to so many of the NDP’s members and supporters.

By the same token, the only hope for the B.C. Green party to elect more members and to become widely competitive is to also answer the knock that it is somehow anti-jobs and anti-growth altogether.

It needs to refute the B.C. Liberals’ suggestion that it is the ultimate "forces of No" party, as it were.

So how to achieve that without rocking the boat and sinking the good ship Green?

This is what I would do.

I would start the rebranding effort by making the party’s campaign slogan all about sustainable growth that most voters want.

The slogan "GreenGrowth BC" might have a nice ring to it, to most target voters’ ears.

Go ahead. Take it. Test it, if you can afford the cost of some focus groups.

And test other variants while you are at it.

The main thing is that they must be aimed at framing the alternative your party offers as being both pro-environment and pro-jobs, in a way that the other parties are inhibited from presenting.

If only because they don’t have "green" in their label.

If I were Weaver, I’d run on that new slogan that is still Green at its core. I’d also trademark it and register it straight away, so that no one else could steal that name or reserve it for another party.

I’d vow that if the B.C. Greens elect at least enough MLAs to gain official party status—it only takes four—I would push to change the party’s name to GreenGrowth BC (or whatever slogan/name is selected for the campaign) within six months after the election.

All members would, of course, have to vote on that name change.

But in the meantime, it would give the B.C. Green party something exciting and unique to talk about in driving its campaign narrative and its preferred ballot question, which should be about green growth.

It would only make sense if it was backed up with a comprehensive platform that goes much further than the information posted on the B.C. Green party’s website in detailing how Weaver’s alternative would actually deliver green growth.

The party’s recently released policy document (available on the party's website) is a great addition that offers lots of information and ideas about its core values, vision, and general policy directions, many of which might be quite surprising to casual political observers.

It should be read as a bridge from the party’s past, spanning some three decades, to the contemporary and more centrist offering that Weaver is so carefully developing.

As it is quick to stress, "It is an expression of values held collectively by BC Greens as applied to specic topic areas. It is meant to guide BC Green Party candidates and MLAs and to guide the development of party platorms and public positions. This vision is admittedly incomplete. There are many important areas where policy is lacking. This document has to be seen in the context of a new policy development process envisioned for the party."

The tough policy work is yet to come and is now well underway. It involves an admirable program of workshops, webinars, policy sessions, and public outreach efforts, all aimed at putting much more flesh on the party’s Green bones, heart, and soul that are so thoughtfully presented in the policy document.

Sure, much of that policy document might be open to legitimate criticisms that it is too starry-eyed, naïve, unworkable and even delusional in its economic, fiscal, and practical implications.

But it is a helluva lot better than what the party had before. And its aspirational bent is laudable and inspirational to the world of idealists who so desperately want to believe that the sustainable world they want is at once possible and worth fighting for.

It is a credit to Andrew Weaver’s leadership how far his party has come in reshaping itself as a modern, moderate, and viable political alternative that is ready to make a true "leap" forward that is more tempered and less radical than the Leap Manifesto. Call it, "Leap light."

Weaver is also attracting some stellar new candidates who are anything but the loony fringe he so despises at the federal level.

Much more about them and his new policies in a future column.

For now, here’s hoping that Weaver makes the most of the interparty rift that has united his rank and file and that has given him a wonderful strategic opening to rebrand his party.

Rebranding can be a powerful tool if it’s approached smartly.

And just talking about it is a great conversation starter that gets voters discussing how Andrew Weaver’s Green variant is methodically going about building its case for more Liberals, especially, to give it a second look.