The Liberals' 35th Member
June 7, 2011 - 5:34pm
Interesting. In replying to the budget @jacklayton surprised me by ignoring climate. @bobraeMP surprised me by focusing on it #cdnpoli #hw
FWIW, following the Throne Speech:
The new leader of the opposition, the New Democrats' Jack Layton, told reporters that the speech said little about job creation, and had nothing to say about climate change or hiring more doctors.
Expecting intellectual honesty from Elizabeth May is a bit like expecting the Maple Leafs to sweep the Stanley Cup. You might yearn for it - but sooner or later your hopes will be dashed.
You know, this is kind of to be expected. I mean Maude Barlow and the Council of Canadians have NEVER said anything in support of the NDP. I think it is pretty safe to assume that a majority of these so-called NGOs are really just Lib front groups. I say, let her go on, focuse on the mission at hand, and we'll get her seat in the next election.
Go NDP, Go!!
Elizabeth May the twit er is lying through her teeth already, eh!
So...that is what SGI NDP voters get from her, after their helping her to get elected.
She is beneath contempt given that and her publically announced aspirations to become an Anglican Minister.
Onc e a political hack for corporations always one.
And I agree with the NGO comments above, hence my pissed offness at "alleged", meaning ones that usually are self proclaimed, left intellectuals. They aren't left and they are not intellectuals, they're propagandists for the elite and corporate interests, hence all the strategic voting nonsense through out the years.
Through this lying, of the EMay type noted above, and strategic voting propaganda, they feather their own nests and not much more. As such, they have held back actual progressive social justice and egalitarian infrastructure. They are quite fine with keeping their own status intact and letting others they perceive below them to remain locked out of social justice and equality in society.
Fascinating that she said nothing about the Green position or the Conservative budget. A snap at Jack and kudos to the Liberals. IMO it was to be expected but this is so predictable and so quick that it is almost obscene.
I think the best thing for the Greens would have been for May to lose SGI and then get some new leadership. The Green brand has been rising all over the world, and that potential in Canada was wasted on the egotistical antics of both Jim Harris and Elizabeth May.
Good catch NS on Elizabeth May NOT making a comment about how the Green Party feels about the Conservative budget in respect to anything, just not its lack of focus on anything to do with the environment even.
Guess she is there to be a lying gossip girl.
So from that perspective I agree Aristotleded that it would have been better for the Green Party.
If her actions follow norm patterns for her, she will not be a good constituent MP, and thus is most likely a 1 shot wonder.
If she does as I expect and spends a large part of her time attacking the Opposition instead of the government the good people of Saanich will send her packing, back to Ottawa but without a job.
My guess is that within a year or so some of the local people will be able to stage contests for rare E May sightings in her riding. After all she is a national leader and needs to travel the country and be in her home city of Ottawa where the action is.
Guess she is there to be a lying gossip girl.
So from that perspective I agree Aristotleded that it would have been better for the Green Party.
It's even much worse for the Greens than that. True, they now have an elected MP, so that gives them access to the media, Parliamentary documents etc that they couldn't use before. But in this election, the Greens lost support, so there go a great deal of their public subsidies, even without the changes Flaherty introduced. So on that basis they won't nearly have the same level of resources available to hold May's seat, much less branch out and win others. Plus the Greens are going to be squeezed by the "anybody-but-Harper" dynamic that will play itslef out in the next federal election. Egotistical antics just won't cut it in trying to build a party under these difficult circumstances.
Will she be getting leader wages as well as an MP slary?
And I concur with your sentiments completely.
Will she be getting leader wages as well as an MP salary?
No, you have to lead an official party with 12 or more seats to do that. She is essentially just another Andre Arthur
Council of Canadians a Lib-front group? What are you smoking? They are more left of the NDP which has for all intents and purposes become a new Liberal Party only slightly left of Paul Martin's Liberals and far to the right of the Trudeau Liberals.
I understand that EMay was a no show for the 1st question period - lol - all her moaning and groaning of having to be in the House and her 1st day is a no show - so much for that "show of contempt" to her supporters!
I'm going to start checking the vote results in the House to see how many times E. May votes with or against (if ever) the Liberals.
That would be an interesting stat to note when the (so-called) Green Party leader goes back to the voters next time.
That tweet looked like may was trying to hit to twits in one.
Where E. May is concerned, it's a tough choice really between following up on the urge to describe her ramblings as pure idiocy, and knowingly lending the nonsense more attention than it deserves.
Reaction to the Speech from the Throne
Elizabeth May (GPC - Saanich-Gulf Islands)
Today’s Speech from the Throne did not include anything that spoke to a vision for Canada. It was a workman-like agenda that took the numbers of things in the Conservative Party platform and the previous budget and brought them forward once again. It didn’t give us a long-term vision and in fact it actually retrenched from some things that were in the platform. ....there was more content in the Conservative Party’s platform on plans for the reenactment and recognition of the bicentennial of the War of 1812 than there was on climate change. In this speech, there was no reference to climate change so we’ve actually seen a lack of even the smallest mention of the single largest threat.
==============================================
May was interviewed on CBC right after Jack Layton and Bob Rae on the Budget - and roundly condemned it, with the exception of one item, some kind of retrofit program that the Cons left in from a previous budget.
Reaction to the Speech from the Throne
Elizabeth May (GPC - Saanich-Gulf Islands)
Today’s Speech from the Throne did not include anything that spoke to a vision for Canada. It was a workman-like agenda that took the numbers of things in the Conservative Party platform and the previous budget and brought them forward once again. It didn’t give us a long-term vision and in fact it actually retrenched from some things that were in the platform. ....there was more content in the Conservative Party’s platform on plans for the reenactment and recognition of the bicentennial of the War of 1812 than there was on climate change. In this speech, there was no reference to climate change so we’ve actually seen a lack of even the smallest mention of the single largest threat.
==============================================
May was interviewed on CBC right after Jack Layton and Bob Rae on the Budget - and roundly condemned it, with the exception of one item, some kind of retrofit program that the Cons left in from a previous budget.
Shhhh... Let these Babblers have their fun. It's always more enjoyable to criticize any other politician but one's own.
We'll see how it turns out notaradical, come what may.
"When the Opposition attacks each other, the Dark Lord rules forever" - Tom Flanagan
I'm going to start checking the vote results in the House to see how many times E. May votes with or against (if ever) the Liberals.
That would be an interesting stat to note when the (so-called) Green Party leader goes back to the voters next time.
There is going to be little difference between any opposition votes (NDP included), as a majority government requires no opposition support. The Liberals can vote against every Harper measure now without worrying about triggering an election they can't afford.
It appears to me that Elizabeth May made a tactical error - or a rookie mistake - in not realizing that if the Government had anything to say on the environment, it would appear in the Throne Speech first, and in the Budget only if there were financial implications. Picking on Layton may also have been just a snarky expression of her personality.
She was in the scrums but not in Question Period on the first day. It is obvious that as the equivalent of an independent member she was never going to get a question on the first day. I wonder what her attendance will be like. I suspect she will not attend Question Period much except on the rare occasion she herself gets a Question that the government can give a non answer to.
She was in the scrums but not in Question Period on the first day.
Hmmm... I read this here:
"...Later, Monday's question period was dominated by foreign affairs questions about Libya and Afghanistan, while Quebec issues were noticeably absent from the agenda, in large part because the virtually non-existent Bloc Quebecois -- with only four MPs now -- no longer has official party status and was allowed just one question. Green Party leader and that party's only MP, Elizabeth May, wasn't allowed to ask any."
She was in the scrums but not in Question Period on the first day.
Hmmm... I read this here:
Exactly what I said thx for the confirmation of the obvious.
Why the Hmm?
It is obvious that as the equivalent of an independent member she was never going to get a question on the first day.
Because of this sentence from my link:
"Green Party leader and that party's only MP, Elizabeth May, wasn't allowed to ask any."
If she wasn't in Question Period, then no one would have to state she wasn't allowed to ask a question.
I watched some of it on CPAC and boy it is boring. The questions are polite and the answers are read from a prepared script. The answer to all questions was the same. We threw a bone to that issue in the budget are you going to support it. Except for the tax cuts for corporations where they explained the rich need the steak so they have the energy for the hard work of creating jobs for the people being fed bones.
The last tag line of all answers was will you vote for the budget and support the bone being given to the citizens or will they have to make due with stone soup.
The decorum will not last long. A Conservative made a "gaff" in her script that demeaned the poser of the question and the Conservative benches erupted in unrestrained laughter at the "inadvertent" insult.
I think the Conservatives have heard the jokes about their trained seals in blue because the navy blue suit was a rarity on their benches. I thought the PM and some other Ministers orange tinged ties was a nice touch that only a frat boy type would think up.
Question Period will get more lively as the issues become clearer and the new MPs get more comfortable being on their feet in the Commons.
But, to bring it back to the thread topic - the Bloc has has one question per day since Question Period resumed (Jean-François Fortin twice, and Maria Mourani once), all due to the number of questions people are getting through now that there's no heckling. Had May been ready with a question, and standing to be recognized, she could have asked a question by now.
She also said the reason she wasn't in the first question period, is because she was in the lockup reading the budget.
I stand by my prediction that May will try to win the Liberal leadership.
Elizabeth May did ask a question in Question Period today. Bestill my heart.
Happy birthday Elizabeth May!
I stand by my prediction that May will try to win the Liberal leadership.
Hows her french?
I hope someone catches her when she next swoons over Rae. Someone outside the Liberal party actually *likes* him – Liberals, your plan is working! Only a few million more converts to go!
Anddd what question did she ask? It had better have been a good one.
Where E. May is concerned, it's a tough choice really between following up on the urge to describe her ramblings as pure idiocy, and knowingly lending the nonsense more attention than it deserves.
I followed her on twitter partly for environmental updates, partly for the comedy. This is my favorite so far:
Will perimeter agreement un-do the protection of an independent Canada that won the War of 1812?
Maybe not related to the environment, but she is asking about a very serious matter. This topic should have received far more attention than it did. Harper mentioned that an NDP government would jeapordize the agreement, and the NDP said nothing in response. It's as if Harper threw the NDP an easy home run pitch but they struck out from not even trying to swing.
I agree that it's an important topic. But her "Canada in 1812" comment is what I was laughing at.
The issue needs a better spokesperson and you're right that the NDP seem to have dropped the ball on it.
I agree that it's an important topic. But her "Canada in 1812" comment is what I was laughing at.
The issue needs a better spokesperson and you're right that the NDP seem to have dropped the ball on it.
No, they did not drop the ball on it; they correctly reecognized that it is a topic that the vast majority of Canadians don't want to hear about and decided to focus instead on things that working people perceive to matter to them. This is not to say that the topic is unimportant; just that most people don't see it as such. The hallmark of an ineffective Opposition is the tendency to flit from issue to issue on topics that the majority of the public is uninterested in. That tendency plays a large part in the undoing of both Mssrs. Dion and Ignatieff.
May asked about whether the government would be introducing a massive omnibus implementation bill like last year. A process story, in other words. She got an answer about munchkins.
Funny that the NDP has had three days of questions on the environment from Megan Leslie, and the first question by the Green Party leader is on another obscure parliamentary issue Canadians don't perceive to matter to them. I guess she learned at the feet of her Liberal confreres and -soeurs.
Well either Mulroney or the Liberals, thank you for answering my question OO, I figured as much. The first so called "environmentally focused" MP in the HoC and she says not a word for the history books about the environment. Which of course indicates what a lie it was already about her supposedly being the first environmental MP.
I followed her on twitter partly for environmental updates, partly for the comedy. This is my favorite so far:
Will perimeter agreement un-do the protection of an independent Canada that won the War of 1812?
Really? So that wasn't a force of British redcoats (aided by Upper Canada irregulars, and First Nations warriors) who roundly beat a superior US force at the Battle of Stoney Creek, and captured two US major-generals? Sir Isaac Brock wasn't itching to get to the Iberian Peninsula, wasn't British, was Canadian? British North America was already an independent Canada in 1812? Huh. The things you learn.
I personally don't understand green parties and their international assosiation(global greens). There's a right wing green party in Mexico but left wing ones in Europe. A centrist one here in Canada but a left wing one in the US. I simply agree with David Suzuki that the current parties should be greener. The current greens saw that there was an opening in the centre, and quickly lept into it. If they are liberals, they should merge with the liberals. They have a history of coporation in '08, why not seal the deal.
So, what do you guys think?
The issue needs a better spokesperson and you're right that the NDP seem to have dropped the ball on it.
I disagree that people don't see this as important. For one, Harper felt that the perimeter security deal was important enough to mention during the election campaign. As said, that agreement basically finishes the job that the US tried in 1812. There is a long-standing fear among Canadians that "the Americans" will eventually take us over. This clearly puts Harper off side with the majority of the population on this issue, and confirms the reservations people have about Harper.
It's not like the NDP even had to focus on this topic. When Harper brought it up, all the NDP had to say is, "Harper will sell us out to the Americans, the NDP will stand up to them." Then go back to the other issues people are talking about.
I personally don't understand green parties and their international assosiation(global greens). There's a right wing green party in Mexico but left wing ones in Europe. A centrist one here in Canada but a left wing one in the US. I simply agree with David Suzuki that the current parties should be greener. The current greens saw that there was an opening in the centre, and quickly lept into it. If they are liberals, they should merge with the liberals. They have a history of coporation in '08, why not seal the deal.
So, what do you guys think?
'If' they are Liberals?
So many of us have been saying for years that the Green Party is just a Liberal Party creation to siphon votes away from the NDP in order to help the Liberals get elected.
There's far greater chance of a Liberal/Green merger in the future than there ever will be a Liberal/NDP merger I.M.H.O.
There's far greater chance of a Liberal/Green merger in the future than there ever will be a Liberal/NDP merger I.M.H.O.
Agreed, though I doubt May could bring half of the party with her. I'm a New Democrat, but I know there are principled Greens who aren't stealth Liberals, or stealth anything else, who deserve a more representative leadership.
When May might look to keeping her career going within the LPC, is only when the gig she has is failing by anyone's standards.
Viz the OP, interesting that only a few days later she makes it explicit she will NOT focus on climate change.
I suspect part of her strategy is a media one: that if she keeps bringing up process questions [under the 'democracy' rubric], the lazy media will start coming to her for commentary on that.
eMe at what she does best: schmoozing the intelligentsia. Thats what she did in her long Sierra Club gig. And now that she's an MP and the GPC is an empty shell, she'll do it again.
The Liberal party is a disaster. They can have EMay and her "merry band of amateurs."
Green Party reaction to the budget -- CPAC http://tinyurl.com/6dmgeh6 NDP reaction to the budget - CPAC - http://tinyurl.com/6xm8qze Liberal reaction - CPAC - http://tinyurl.com/6atqzt8 For some people in this forum there will never be anything that Elizabeth does that satisfies them. So be it. In the NDP official press release http://tinyurl.com/6gkoj8y there is no mention of climate change and in Mr. Layton's response on CPAC there isn't one. So Elizabeth was not 'lying through her teeth or being intelectually dishonest by any means. Twitter is a perfectly useless tool and why people rely on it for any real form of information is surprising. Bob Rae mentioned sustainability in his response and climate change but did not really focus on it. Each had their own emphasis on various aspects of the budget and all of them relevent. If Elizabeth has said she will not overly emphasize climate change as an MP then no one is happier than me because that's not her job. He job is to work from the GPC policy and viewpoint within the opposition and since we have NEVER claimed to be an exclusively environmental party. I'll be waiting to see what the Green voting record will be over time and to allow for a 'body' of work to be done before casting judgement on her performance. She deserves that in the same way the NDP should be given the time to establish how they will operate as the official opposition. I've read through some of the other threads and there appears to be just as much anxiety and mistrust over what direction the NDP will go over the next four years. She was not obliged to ask a question about the environment as her first question and there will be plenty of time for her to focus on climate change and the environment at times when it is relevent to do so. She is only one representative compared to the number of New Democrats so it stands to reason that they will have more questions on all issues and not just the environment.There's far greater chance of a Liberal/Green merger in the future than there ever will be a Liberal/NDP merger I.M.H.O.
Agreed, though I doubt May could bring half of the party with her. I'm a New Democrat, but I know there are principled Greens who aren't stealth Liberals, or stealth anything else, who deserve a more representative leadership.
Yes. May is a Liberal. Which is why she's spent the last 5 years trying to get into parliament with the so-much-more-incredibly-electable Greens.
And Bob Rae was a New Democrat.
For whatever reason, May obviously feels more akin to the Liberals than the NDP. Now she's made it to parliament, in the rear corner of the Liberal caucus, and the Liberals are in such a reduced state, I think it's conceivable she'll either propose a merger or become a Liberal outright in hopes of winning the leadership.
The Green Liberal Party has a nice ring to it with E. May as its founding leader. A neo-con dream for the next election.
A party like that would be neither particularly green nor liberal.
Indeed and thus it would be a perfect fit within our political system.
The Liberals are liberal in name only and the NDP claims it is socialist in its constitution but not in its policy proposals. The Reform Party swallowed the Red Tories and their old school conservative notions from the none neo-con right.
Yup a meaningless Green Liberal brand might just sell in this country. Canadians want to have it all. A petrodollar and the ability to buy many other countries goods for cheap and a feeling of moral superiority as they recycle their yellow newspapers. Newspapers who daily remind them who the villains in the world are.
Capitalists, with composters and a sense of moral superiority should sell especially well if Harper turns nasty.
Yes. May is a Liberal. Which is why she's spent the last 5 years trying to get into parliament with the so-much-more-incredibly-electable Greens.
If she had been the Liberal candidate in SGI she would have been crushed like a bug.
Northern Shoveler - "Indeed and thus it would be a perfect fit within our political system. The Liberals are liberal in name only and the NDP claims it is socialist in its constitution but not in its policy proposals. The Reform Party swallowed the Red Tories and their old school conservative notions from the none neo-con right.
Yup a meaningless Green Liberal brand might just sell in this country. Canadians want to have it all. A petrodollar and the ability to buy many other countries goods for cheap and a feeling of moral superiority as they recycle their yellow newspapers. Newspapers who daily remind them who the villains in the world are.
Capitalists, with composters and a sense of moral superiority should sell especially well if Harper turns nasty."
Such is the nature of politics in general and the dilemma of any political party. Where does a political party establish the line between remaining 'letter of the law' faithful to the policy of its membership and the less dogmatic concerns of the voters who they represent in Parliament? There is no merger for the liberals or the greens in any capacity since merger would simply be a spun interpretation of giving up the ghost. There would never be a green/liberal party. It would simply be the liberal party. At this point there wouldn't be an NDP/liberal party. There would simply be a slightly larger NDP party. I seriously doubt the liberals will discuss anything until after the 2015 election when they will know for certain whether Canadians want it to go extinct or not. There's no advantage for the liberals in a merger with the NDP other than a few existing MPs thinking they can get re-elected as individuals and maybe gain a cabinet position. There's not enough Green Party members willing to dissolve to consider any form of merger and there's no real money in it for the liberals.
Not much money, but the Green brand, if the Liberals could acquire it - or even if May would sell a facsimile of it - could provide the perception of outflanking the NDP on the Left. If the NDP mean to play it safe and moderate now, that may not be hard to do.
The love-in continues:
Not much money, but the Green brand, if the Liberals could acquire it - or even if May would sell a facsimile of it - could provide the perception of outflanking the NDP on the Left. If the NDP mean to play it safe and moderate now, that may not be hard to do.
I thought that was what they tried back in 2008 with their refusing to run against her and Dion's big green campaign.
And considering that May will be almost 90 in 32 years (she is only four years younger than Rae) it could also have been either a grim joke or a taunt.
The love-in continues:
Get. A. Room.
The love-in continues:
Get. A. Room.
I'll retract some of my May bashing on the merit of her solitary vote against extending the Libya mission. It wasn't just the right thing, it was also smart politics, and it's a foolish disgrace she didn't have company.
Pretty sad state of affairs when Elizabeth May is the only voice opposed to extending the Libya travesty.
Pretty shameful the NDP isnt against this Libya adventure. It's not like they would change anything by being against it.
I'm really curious as to why the NDP wants to completely obliterate itself as a moderate, slightly left party by joining in this bloody chorus. If it keeps this up, it could find itself a split caucus.
Good on elizabeth may in this case. Shame on the NDP..
If you look at May's words its clear that she doesn't actually oppose the involvement in Libya - she just wants to symbolically express concern about mission creep.I have a feeling that she will try to carve out a Rob Ford-like role for herself in this parliament - shopping around for otherwise unanimous votes in the house so she can make it 307-1.
I'm really curious as to why the NDP wants to completely obliterate itself as a moderate, slightly left party by joining in this bloody chorus. If it keeps this up, it could find itself a split caucus.
As you may recall the NDP was very supportive of action in Libya back in March...then we had an election and gained almost 70 seats. Either it was a popular position to take or it was something of no relevance to anyone.
The NDP wants to be the new Liberal party.
Maybe the new Party would be the Left Party of Canada. You would have the NDP denying they were the Left Party, now it looks like the Liberals have taken over the NDP. A rump that split from the NDP should call itself the Left Opposition.
As you may recall the NDP was very supportive of action in Libya back in March...then we had an election and gained almost 70 seats. Either it was a popular position to take or it was something of no relevance to anyone.
Yes it would be quite silly to expect the NDP to do crazy things like the CCF did in the 1940's like opposing the internment of Japanese Canadians. Or silly little things like opposing the War Measures Act just like Tommy Douglas did in 1970. These moves were "unpopular" and not of much relevance to anyone.
Better to stick to nice safe things like removing the GST from home heating costs.
I guess the real test comes in 2015. Will the NDP gain by drifting to the right? That is the big question. There's an old saying about gaining the whole world but losing your soul in the process.
Very old. It's in the New Testament.
As you may recall the NDP was very supportive of action in Libya back in March...then we had an election and gained almost 70 seats. Either it was a popular position to take or it was something of no relevance to anyone.
Yes it would be quite silly to expect the NDP to do crazy things like the CCF did in the 1940's like opposing the internment of Japanese Canadians. Or silly little things like opposing the War Measures Act just like Tommy Douglas did in 1970. These moves were "unpopular" and not of much relevance to anyone.
Better to stick to nice safe things like removing the GST from home heating costs.
I wasn't debating the merit of the policy position itself. Someone claimed that the NDP would suffer electoral consequences for voting to extend the mission in Libya by three months. I was simply pointing out that the party gained unprecedented support after it voted in favour of the mission in the first place and all polls since then show that support remains high - especially in Quebec. There may be arguments against supporting the Libya mission - but there is no evidence that its "bad politics".
It's hard to believe the fight is being fought in that field. It shouldn't be about catering to the current mindset. It should be about changing it. Hard to do when the MSM is firmly in the neoliberal camp, but we've gotta try. Anything less would be criminal.
The NDP apologists should recognize that their party is and has been for a while a populist party that panders to the political centre. Accept it and move to combat it, but don't sit in denial. This goes for all the NDP supporters on this forum that see through rose coloured glasses.
really Notaradical, and when did you become the judger of those who post here and deciding if we have on rose coloured glasses. I find that statement to be self-righteous and arrogant in defining what the NDP party panders to. I don't dis whatever party you support so please don't dis others who may not share your beliefs or opinions. Thanks, I found it offensive.
I wasn't debating the merit of the policy position itself. Someone claimed that the NDP would suffer electoral consequences for voting to extend the mission in Libya by three months. I was simply pointing out that the party gained unprecedented support after it voted in favour of the mission in the first place and all polls since then show that support remains high - especially in Quebec. There may be arguments against supporting the Libya mission - but there is no evidence that its "bad politics".
I guess we have different definitions of what constitutes "bad politics". IMHO bad politics is doing bad things. It would seem that your definition of bad politics is doing something that might hurt you electorally.
Ok, let me put it this way. other people have tried to argue that the bottom would fall out of NDP support across Canada (ESP. In QC) as a result of not opposing an extension of the mission in Libya. This is clearly not the case since all the facts indicate that NDP support has soared AFTER the party supported the Libya mission and continues to increase in Quebec. clearly either the mission in Libya is very popular across Canada and the NDP is actually gaining support because of it's position (unlikely) OR it's simply an irrelevant issue to 99 pc of the electorate and people just don't care. If there really was some huge popular movement across Canada against what's happening in Libya then it seems cleverly concealed.
You can't have it both ways. You can't scold the NDP for it's position on Libya claiming it will be damaging to the party's popularity and then turn around and say that what is popular is irrelevant and that it's just a matter of principle.
Someone wrote on my FB page tonight: "The heck with Libya, Will and Kate are just so darn cute".
(he was being sarcastic, of course)
Stock I am now happy i voted marx, The NDP is moving no longer glacially tpwards the right, but at a gallup. I don't give a fig about political elections if you become the enemy. See britain for a similar example. I don't recall too many people happy with blair around these parts so why should we be happy with a new layton heading in that exact direction.
Speaking of Tony Blair... this from The People's Voice: (excerpt)
The NDP made a serious error by backing this war. Allowing the U.S. and its allies to carry out the so‑called "responsibility to protect" doctrine gives carte blanche to the western imperialist powers to attack other countries at will. The NDP cannot pretend to be an anti‑war party while voting in favour of war. Jack Layton is looking less like some former leaders of his party, and more like Tony Blair. This is a betrayal of Canadians who want the NDP to oppose Harper's dangerous foreign policy.
Fortunately, Green Party leader Elizabeth May refused to give "a blank cheque to a mission that doesn't have an exit strategy." She voted "No", braving enormous pressure to join the chorus of unanimous support for the war. Congratulations to May for voicing the concerns of millions of Canadians.
So the NDP should always oppose any intervention even if clearly can stop a massacre or genocide? Cmon guys. NDP staunchly opposed the Iraq war from beginning to end. It didnt oppose this one because there were legitimate grounds to go in and prevent another humanitarian disaster. Its really ridiculous to say the ndp is going right because of this. I cant see this as anything but going left. It seems everytime the ndp supports any military anything its kneejerked accused of going right and if its more popular its because its going right. I think thats gobbledegook reasoning. Standing by while tin pots kill their own people is not left anything.
Liz May is an opportunist here.
So the NDP should always oppose any intervention even if clearly can stop a massacre or genocide? Cmon guys. NDP staunchly opposed the Iraq war from beginning to end. It didnt oppose this one because there were legitimate grounds to go in and prevent another humanitarian disaster. Its really ridiculous to say the ndp is going right because of this. I cant see this as anything but going left. It seems everytime the ndp supports any military anything its kneejerked accused of going right and if its more popular its because its going right. I think thats gobbledegook reasoning. Standing by while tin pots kill their own people is not left anything.
Liz May is an opportunist here.
Layton was the opportunist, jumping on the "bomb Gaddafi" bandwagon.
I posted this in the Libya XIII thread:
What Libya can expect from western democracy
excerpt:
What will be the final result for Libyans? To answer that it might be useful to ask what the ruthless Gaddafi has done in addition to being ruthless.
Libya is not Egypt, where skyrocketing food prices were at the root of popular anger. Western leaders know this but they are loath to admit it because for a dictatorship, Libya looks relatively good in terms of the material conditions of its people. According to researcher Ian Hunter of Globalresearch.ca.
"In 1969, Muammar Gaddafi led a bloodless coup to overthrow King Idris I, a monarch imposed by the British after WWII. At the time, Libya was the poorest country in the entire world; with a literacy rate below 10 per cent. Since then, the Libyan government has improved all aspects of their society.
excerpt:
Until now, whatever you might think of , his mercenaries, and his erratic behaviour, the money from the country's oil has been more equally distributed amongst the population than in any other oil-rich nation in the world with the possible exception of Norway.
If the west prevails in this phony human rights exercise, three things can be predicted with virtual certainty: the oil will end up in the hands of western oil companies, the standard of living of Libyans will drop steadily, and they won't have genuine democracy. How shall we celebrate?
It didnt oppose this one because there were legitimate grounds to go in and prevent another humanitarian disaster.
The fact that you believe the imperial propaganda spewed from our MSM on an hourly basis does not make it true.
How the fuck to you protect people by bombing their cites with U2 weapons. Do be consistent with your view on the duty to protect innocent civilans then the NDP should be calling for the bombing of Tel Aviv.
Tripoli is Canada's Gurenica. My tax dollars have us playing the role of the German Condor Legion in the Libyan civil war.
I agree with what you said. Others are allowed to have their opinions and not be shouted down or disrespected by others.
So the NDP should always oppose any intervention even if clearly can stop a massacre or genocide? Cmon guys. NDP staunchly opposed the Iraq war from beginning to end. It didnt oppose this one because there were legitimate grounds to go in and prevent another humanitarian disaster. Its really ridiculous to say the ndp is going right because of this. I cant see this as anything but going left. It seems everytime the ndp supports any military anything its kneejerked accused of going right and if its more popular its because its going right. I think thats gobbledegook reasoning. Standing by while tin pots kill their own people is not left anything.
Liz May is an opportunist here.
I was astonished to see how few ridings gave the Greens over 10%. They won't even get their expense rebates in almost every riding, compared to 2008 where they got a lot of them. They must have large deficits in those ridings.
Here are the six exceptions:
John Streicker (Yukon) 18.9%
Adriane Carr 15.4%
Ard Van Leeuwen 14.7%
Heather MacIntosh 13.1%
Jared Giesbrecht 11.6%
Greig Crockett 10.7%
Pretty much. Those who plan these interventions are experts at manipulating the language to make these military adventures sound more noble than they actually are.
The operative word here is "opposed," as in, the past tense, something the NDP did a long time ago. I seriously doubt that if that same war was being launched today that the NDP would be as fiercely opposed now as it was back then.
Gee, a politician acting opportunistically? I'm shocked! What is the world coming to? She may have been an opportunist, but she gave voice to the millions of Canadians who oppose Canada's military involvement (have you read some of the comments made by the public on the webpages of major media outlets?) in this mission and, as those who opposed the Iraq war, will eventually be vindicated as being on the right side of history.
Don't think she's going to let left-wing NDP/Green swing voters forget about how the NDP voted either. That could very well cost the NDP some close seats.
The NDP supported the mission in Libya in a vote in parliament in February and then went on to gain 69 seats in the election in May. If there is a segment of the electorate that will punish the NDP in 2015 for supporting a three month extension of the mission in 2011 - I think you may need a magnifying glass to find it.
Ready Aye Ready
The Liberals ruled this country for most of the last 140 years. I get it that the model works and yet for the last 40 years I have resisted supporting them and instead chose the party with an alternative view that most aligned with my own political ideals. I have heard your power politics arguments from my federal Liberal friends for decades and I was no more persuaded when it came out of their mouths.
Indeed and thus it would be a perfect fit within our political system.
The Liberals are liberal in name only and the NDP claims it is socialist in its constitution but not in its policy proposals. The Reform Party swallowed the Red Tories and their old school conservative notions from the none neo-con right.
*looks mournfully at her copy of Trumpets and Drums, pours first drink of day, refreshes PC Party webpage for hundred-and-thirtieth time this week hoping for an update, a tweet, anything, 'freshens' drink.*
It is lonely being a red tory tryke without even a proper socialist to work for, it surely is.
really Notaradical, and when did you become the judger of those who post here and deciding if we have on rose coloured glasses. I find that statement to be self-righteous and arrogant in defining what the NDP party panders to. I don't dis whatever party you support so please don't dis others who may not share your beliefs or opinions. Thanks, I found it offensive.
It might be petulant of me to point out that we're in a thread accusing the Green leader of being a Liberal, and that the majority of the posters and vitriol from any objective standard are NDPers who don't want to conscien the idea that in coalition politics her behavior of demonstrating issue affinity is not uncommon, and further one needn't be in a minority situation to engage in coalition politics.
Just like the Common Programme between the French Socialists and Communists.
Don't get me wrong, this is a valid viewpoint, that there should be one big party to challenge the right... the Grits should know. They were that party for a couple decades, since the Tories gave up on being informed by what were reflexive left-wiing politics and elected the biggest Business Grits in blue suits they could find.
But of course, the NDP does, more than most parties on the centre-left, like to freeze out its dissenters and detractors, especially when we say, for example, that a GST exemption on heating oil isn't a particularly green policy, or a very good reason to let a trans rights bill die in the Senate.
Maybe not now, but just watch when the US decides its airforce needs another country for target practice. Harper will certainly go along, but I guess as long as the NDP brass is dumb enough to fall for the "humanitarian misssion" crap that comes out then the NDP will support the mission on "humanitarian" grounds?
Tell me, is there any substantive difference between the NDP and the other parties on foreign policy? Will the NDP ever be able to articulate anything remotely resembling a credible foreign policy within my lifetime?
I guess it depends on what you consider to be a "credible" foreign policy. I'm not sure if total head in the sand isolationism and non-involvement in anything - is what most people would consider "credible".
I guess it depends on what you consider to be a "credible" foreign policy. I'm not sure if total head in the sand isolationism and non-involvement in anything - is what most people would consider "credible".
You love to kick straw.
Elizabeth May has got some flak on twitter this morning for wading into the "WiFi causes cancer" debate...
Elizabeth May MP
@ElizabethMay Elizabeth May MP
Interesting and informative session on electromagnetic frequencies and Smart Meters. So glad I don't have Wifi at home.
Elizabeth May MP
@ElizabethMay Elizabeth May MP
It is very disturbing how quickly Wifi has moved into schools as it is children who are the most vulnerable.
Elizabeth May MP
ElizabethMay Elizabeth May MP
By the way, shocked by some twitter reaction. I do not act without scientific info. Internationally, EMF are treated differently.
@ElizabethMay Elizabeth May MP
@saskboy Yes, there are other health threats, but schools should not increase them. I did not expect the hornet's nest.
34 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply
Check out the latest drivel from Elizabeth May. She seems positively giddy with anticipation that if jack is out of the way someone at the NDP might be willing to return her calls. She goes back to her old canard about how the NDP and Liberals need to cooperate, implying that the NDP was the obstacle to this. Someone remind her that the NDP formed a coalition with the Liberals in Dec. 2008 and it was the Liberals who walked and and that it was the liberals who have spent the last few years telling anyone who would listen that they would NEVER cooperate with the NDP - while the NDP always made it clear that it was willing to work with other parties.
Elizabeth May = world's most revolting person!
http://www.straight.com/article-408481/vancouver/may-wants-ndp-liberals-...
http://www.straight.com/article-408481/vancouver/may-wants-ndp-liberals-cooperate
It takes some doing to be outclassed by Hedy Fry on an issue:
May made me sick to think she is that cold and calculating all the while pretending with hope and prayers. Jack sure doesn't need the kind of prayers she is sending his way - wonder if she has a Jack voodoo doll that she is poking holes in daily - so glad she is in the "nose bleed" seat in the House of Commons where she belongs.
And I do hope that NDP supporters in members in her riding remember this crap and not vote for her next time - absolutely offensive.
I don't think now was an appropriate time to discuss a merger and I hope that they do not start pressuring the NDP whilst jack is recovering. I am a very forgiving/patient person and I will try to assume that she made a "slip-up"
Smirk
Giggles
Guffaw
I am a very forgiving/patient person and I will try to assume that she made a "slip-up"
A slip-up is one thing but this looked like slipping a knife in and twisting. She is a nasty human being. IMO
dp*
The NDP supported the mission in Libya in a vote in parliament in February and then went on to gain 69 seats in the election in May. If there is a segment of the electorate that will punish the NDP in 2015 for supporting a three month extension of the mission in 2011 - I think you may need a magnifying glass to find it.
Ok Stock, since this is the nth time youve repeatd this I guess I'll reply.
One, theres no proof that the NDP gains are due to voter SUPPORT for the mission. At best it implies either indifference, or more likly a weighing it against other issues thy believe the NDP addresses.
Two, most North Americans get piss poor coverage of whats actualy going on in the world -even in our own backyard. Therefoe "our opinions could be based less on judicious common sense, which the common voter is noted for, than misinformtion and spin. Whatever it is, I do NOT like vital decisions like to war or not to war being treated as mere political gamesmanship.
Three, at the time it was sold as a "humitarian" mission to protect unarmed civilians from a ruthless dictator. This is no longer plausible, even in the rightwing media.
Four, perhaps because of this "mission creep" I believe seventy percent of Canadians do not support the mission in Libya. If that is anywhere close to correct then I hinkit is`safe to assume ht left-of-cenre voters are the Least likly to suppot it. The numbers from Quebec indicate that is the case
I would strongly advise that NDP partisans stop assuming that "you" have supplanted th Liberals and Bloc and and can now cruise control.
Stockholm wrote: Elizabeth May = world's most revolting person!
http://www.straight.com/article-408481/vancouver/may-wants-ndp-liberals-cooperate
It takes some doing to be outclassed by Hedy Fry on an issue:
On this though we can agree. Absolute lack of class on her part however she tries to frame it.
This NDP partisan says hear hear!
Its nice to know that there's still NDPers like you Aristotled. I still believe we outnumber the party's rightwing, at least federally.
Another reason NOt to support a merger with the centre-right, now that I think of it.
NS I totally agree with what you said.
I am a very forgiving/patient person and I will try to assume that she made a "slip-up"
A slip-up is one thing but this looked like slipping a knife in and twisting. She is a nasty human being. IMO
Closed for length.