In a message sent to Green Party members this morning, the second such message in just three days, Elizabeth May issued an additional call for members to support her leadership by voting yes in the confidence vote which is underway. She has made one thing clear: she believes the party’s leadership transition cannot happen without her.
“Please allow me to continue until we elect the next leader or leaders!”
That one sentence captures the essence of May’s current strategy — to present herself not as a retiring leader, but as the steward of succession. It’s a message designed to convince members that voting “Yes” in her upcoming leadership review is a vote for stability — and that anything else risks chaos.
But critics say this is just the latest example of May clinging to control under the guise of renewal.
Orchestrating the Transition — On Her Own Terms
While May has publicly stated that the Green Party “will have a new leader or new co-leaders before the next election,” she is also asking members to keep her in charge until that moment — with no defined deadline, no process details, and no concrete path to democratization.
May frames the review vote not as a referendum on her leadership, but as a referendum on whether the party can function without her. She warns of “disruption” and “increased costs” if an interim leader is appointed, despite offering no explanation why the party cannot prepare for a transition without her micromanaging every step.
“Appointing an interim leader (required if I fail in the leadership review) will create disruption and increase costs,” May wrote.
“I work as a volunteer… Please allow me to continue…”
But critics point out that this framing is deeply misleading. May is not a volunteer — she is a sitting Member of Parliament with a salary of over $194,000, plus full travel privileges, allowances, and pension. And her version of transition has historically involved tightly controlled backroom influence.
A Pattern of Control
Elizabeth May has long struggled to relinquish power. Since stepping down in 2019, she has remained a dominant force in the party: controlling federal council allies, installing Annamie Paul as her chosen successor, and later returning to the leadership alongside Jonathan Pedneault after an opaque co-leadership arrangement.
During the 2022 leadership race, she was accused of orchestrating the expulsion of rival candidate Alex Tyrrell — leader of the Green Party of Quebec — and has since continued to dominate messaging, staffing, and party strategy.
Now, she is asking members to trust her to supervise yet another transition — one that she has already positioned herself to shape.
“Your whole Green Party team – leadership, Federal Council, Fund Board, Shadow Cabinet and senior staff – are united,” she wrote, in a passage critics read as evidence that the party machinery remains firmly in her corner.
Will Members Buy It?
The leadership review ballot will ask Green Party members a simple question: should Elizabeth May remain leader during the transition to new leadership?
But beneath that question lies a deeper dilemma: can the Green Party ever truly renew itself while Elizabeth May is at the helm — or even hovering just behind the throne?
As one critic put it, “You don’t get generational renewal by giving the architect of the last 20 years the keys to the future.”
