May Blunders

25 posts / 0 new
Last post
kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture
May Blunders

Given the NB defection story and Elizabeth's know it all attitude I thought I would start a thread to track her gaffes. Here is my opening salvo.

Reading the Green leader's platform introduction aloud over the phone from London, Holland became increasingly incensed, calling it "rubbish" and "embarrassing."

"It's just sort of fake history on a catastrophic level," he said. "Why would you write about this without checking the facts when it's not your core subject?"

May's message concluded with a call on Canadians to tap into "the spirit of Dunkirk."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/elizabeth-may-dunkirk-history-1.5286077...

DistinguishedFlyer

I can't help remembering John McCallum's embarrassing double gaffe on Dieppe & Vimy back in 2002 or thereabouts. When people who generally prefer to ignore or look down on Canada's military history - or the Allied war effort in general, in this case - suddenly turn around and try to invoke it they generally end up looking foolish (and it's hardly the first time she's done it, either). Since it's a piece of written text, she can't very well trot out the old "I was tired" excuse, which she usually does whenever she says something bizarre. However, given the furor that's just erupting now over Justin Trudeau, though, I doubt much will be made of this.

(And yes, before anyone says something, I am aware that Canadian troops were not on the Dunkirk beaches.)

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

So here is another installment of this ongoing saga.

The Green Party says it has notified Elections Canada that some voters' personal information was temporarily visible in internal training videos that were publicly accessible on the party's website.

According to a written statement from the party, the error was the result of an "oversight."

"A small number of videos hosted in an internal training section on our website contained visuals of some Elections Canada information," the statement read in part.

It said the information primarily pertained to names and addresses and included only a small number of voters.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/green-party-told-elections-canada-...

EMay can never admit even the smallest mistake. So this response is perfectly in character.

The Green Party of Canada says that after speaking with Elections Canada, it believes that "inadvertent" disclosure of voters' personal information in a series of campaign training videos is "not a serious issue."

On Tuesday the party removed the videos, which were publicly accessible from its website, after CTV News discovered that they contained real voters' personal information hosted within the party's voter information database.   

https://election.ctvnews.ca/green-party-says-its-inadvertent-disclosure-...

 

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

Elizabeth May's tactic is that if she's going to spout some bullshit, she says it with authority and hopes that no one will challenge her.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

radiorahim wrote:

Elizabeth May's tactic is that if she's going to spout some bullshit, she says it with authority and hopes that no one will challenge her.

Its worked for her in her own party for over a decade.

DistinguishedFlyer

kropotkin1951 wrote:

radiorahim wrote:

Elizabeth May's tactic is that if she's going to spout some bullshit, she says it with authority and hopes that no one will challenge her.

Its worked for her in her own party for over a decade.

 

Well, if she can do what she did at the Press Gallery dinner four years ago and get away with it - and, what's more, have columnists excusing her by claiming that all criticism of it was simply unfair and sexist - she can surely escape unscathed from these other things . . .

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

It appears that the Greens have made her Leader for Life so she has nothing to fear except losing her own seat and that is not likely to happen. I don't know of any other party that could do so poorly election after election and still not want to replace the person in the front of the parade.

jerrym

Elizabeth May's retweeting of the following comment and Andrew Weaver's comment puts them in the same league as Trudeau and his brown- and blackface costumes when it comes to racially-related social justice issues.

Since Trudeau’s brownface/blackface scandal surfaced, along with the renewed hurt for so many Canadians, some uninformed pundits have called it a "distraction". But I never expected that position from prominent Green party politicians here in British Columbia.

I was dismayed by the first reaction from B.C. Green Leader Andrew Weaver. Instead of empathizing with the people wounded by racism, he stated: “There are profound issues facing our society. Talk about them.”

Then Elizabeth May, the Green Party of Canada leader, took it a step further by retweeting someone who decried the attention to Trudeau’s antics: “Can we please, please focus on the nightmares of climate change as something that actually matters to the futures of every. single. human?”

May would later delete it, but it’s still becoming clear the Green party has not prioritized racial injustices that still exist in Canada today.

https://www.straight.com/news/1305361/jenny-kwan-pain-trudeaus-racist-bl...

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The little things, like photo shopping a picture of her so she is holding the right kind of straw instead of the one she had, don't help her girl guide leader image.

In an era of “fake news” controversies, photoshopping a reuseable metal straw and a reuseable cup into the hand of Green Party Leader Elizabeth May would not be the greatest idea.

But that’s what the Green Party did and then prominently displayed it on the party website.

Such fakery in the middle of an election raises issues of how such misinformation is used, say experts in the “fake news” phenomenon.

“It would probably be good practice for official political parties to avoid photoshopping images,” said Britt Paris, a researcher for the Data & Society Research Institute who focuses on visual propaganda and disinformation. “But it’s almost a moot point when photoshopping can be performed by anyone and that manipulated image can then be shared or retweeted by an official political party, an operative… or even just a celebrity.”

The Green Party admitting using Photoshop to add a reuseable cup and metal straw in the photo.

https://beta.canada.com/news/politics/election-2019/green-party-used-pho...

 

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

Photoshopping green friendly products is pretty unbelievable as well as deceptive. I can understand it being a faux pas so why not just crop the photo or not use it at all.

DistinguishedFlyer

I'm a little surprised that none of the other leaders took the opportunity to make a crack about this during the debate on Monday; certainly it's ripe for such mockery.

Sean in Ottawa

DistinguishedFlyer wrote:

I'm a little surprised that none of the other leaders took the opportunity to make a crack about this during the debate on Monday; certainly it's ripe for such mockery.

The lack of a crack at her is more of an insult. Other parties are not wasting time on her.

I appreciate that she is hard working and brought her party to the House. I think it is time for her to move on.

Of course I have said here it is also time for a Sustainability party formed from the merger of the Greens and NDP. This cannot happen with her there.

NorthReport

This is probably heresy here, but what about the possibility of the NDP and the Liberals merging? 

Sean in Ottawa

NorthReport wrote:

This is probably heresy here, but what about the possibility of the NDP and the Liberals merging? 

Worth having the discussion in a sober environment:

pro: the left voters may be more vocal about policy and be able to drag the whole party to do something. The ability for it to be in power means change could happen. The FPTP system really means that third party are more disadvantaged than they would be if actually inside a top-2 party. The Liberals are most right wing when the NDP is outside their party and unsuccessful. Seperate parties may be the worst of all worlds by keeping left voives out of the Liberal party and then disadvantaging them so they lose. The emphasis on the success and performance of a party can like loyalty to a sports team overtake the real progress and cultural awareness on issues. Soemtimes we might be better working on knwoeldge and education about issues like poverty and equality than focussing on parties which may even for their own benefit sacrifice the most important issues they are founded on.

con: The left voices could be overwhelmed by numbers. The only way labour and justice issues can be guaranteed to be heard is by having a party. A third party identified should be able to get enough support to either worry a large party into paying attention or to make them in a minority situation. The real solution is a more level playing field in election financing, media and in an electoral system that allows smaller parties to thrive and in internal democracy inside parties. There is no real standard of internal democracy in any party only between them.

There are good arguments about the ability of alternative voices to be heard either in a party or between them. We should debate the best means of dealing with this. I am not agaisnt the bigger tent solutions in the long run but given the problems I raise in the con section about how parties, political media and election finance are managed, I think the balance is agaisnt the bigger tent and in favour of the smaller parties. Reform could go in either direction. There is merit both ways. People are voting with thier feet as there are left Liberals who want to work from inside - we like to pretend for partisan purposes that this is not true but there are Liebrals who actually are to the left of some NDP supporters becuase they opt for option one over option 2. This is why the middle has more support than there are people in the middle and the left has less support than there are people on the left. That division is also a problem.

Misfit Misfit's picture

NorthReport wrote:

This is probably heresy here, but what about the possibility of the NDP and the Liberals merging? 

Yuck! The Liberals and Conservatives and two corporate based parties who have governed for over 150 years and have made a mess of things. Why would the NDP crawl into bed with big business?

JeffWells

Misfit wrote:

Yuck! The Liberals and Conservatives and two corporate based parties who have governed for over 150 years and have made a mess of things. Why would the NDP crawl into bed with big business?

IMO it's more political culture than politics that distinguishes the NDP from the Liberal Party these days, and the NDP's political culture hasn't been much to take pride in. And to consider how easy it would be, just think about Rachel Notley.

I for one welcome it. It should settle in the mind of Canadian leftists that Canada needs an authentically left party.

And about May, I wonder if this election will be the one that makes Green members realize she's become a liabilty.

Misfit Misfit's picture

I’m sorry, but perish the idea of a Liberal NDP merge. No! Absolutely NOT! The only reason the Liberal party historically did anything progressive is when they were afraid of a left wing party threat or when they were in minority governments where the NDP held the balance of power. You take away the NDP and you go back to the days before the CCF. You have two Bay Street parties running the country and catering to the wishes of big business. Sorry but no way absolutely not.

NorthReport

Don't NDPers ever get tired of losing elections?

Sean in Ottawa

NorthReport wrote:

Don't NDPers ever get tired of losing elections?

It is not about NDPers being tired of losing elections -- it is about progressive policies losing elections.

In this sense it is not clear that these policies are better served by arguing and being shouted down within a larger party or by having a seperate party threaten that larger party from outside.

It is possible that the Liberals are influenced more by fear of the NDP than they would be having former members of the NDP argue within their ranks.

I agree we shoudl debate this without insult and without presumptions and without loyalty to a party over the actual policy and movement ideas.

Even so, I suspect that the movement is better served as an independent party than it would be by merger with Liberals. I do not ahve the same feeling about merger with Greens as I think social democrats could hold their own within that entity.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Didn’t Broadbent support a two party Canada? I didn’t like his discussion then and I definitely don’t like it now.

Sean in Ottawa

Misfit wrote:

Didn’t Broadbent support a two party Canada? I didn’t like his discussion then and I definitely don’t like it now.

I do not remember that.

I do not like the proposal but do like the discussion.

I think it is worth having the discussion even though I do not support a two party Canada. I still think it is good to review the reasons in favour and against becuase that helps guide why we are here and in large part educates why a party that is not likely to become government this time is still important.

One example is that if a large number of people support the NDP , even without wins, the Liberals have to pay attention to avoid losing ot them. Lack of support for the NDP will cause the Liberals to beleive their only threats come from the right.

bekayne

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Misfit wrote:

Didn’t Broadbent support a two party Canada? I didn’t like his discussion then and I definitely don’t like it now.

I do not remember that.

He publicly mused about Canada having a 2 party system like the UK during the 1988 election. Which is ironic, looking at the UK these days.

robbie_dee

The discussion of a Liberal-NDP merger seems a little off topic for this thread, which is supposed to be about Elizabeth May's leadership gaffes. I think May did a great job lending credibility to the Green Party early on in her leadership, but she's now hit the ceiling of what she has to offer. Prior to this election I think the Greens had at least some chance of surpassing the NDP as Canada's principal third party but May has blown it by running a weak campaign against Jagmeet's strong one. She's also a full generation older than the other major party leaders. I suspect that, whatever the result, this campaign will be her last one as Green Party leader.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

NorthReport wrote:

Don't NDPers ever get tired of losing elections?

To quote Tommy quoting a Scot. If it isn't about the cause but only power then it is not worth fighting for.

"I am hurt, but I am not slain. I shall lay me down and bleed a while, then rise and fight again." (originally said by Andrew Barton)

Sean in Ottawa

kropotkin1951 wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Don't NDPers ever get tired of losing elections?

To quote Tommy quoting a Scot. If it isn't about the cause but only power then it is not worth fighting for.

"I am hurt, but I am not slain. I shall lay me down and bleed a while, then rise and fight again." (originally said by Andrew Barton)

Absolutely. And the victories are not only about gaining power. Influence through minorities or through moderation of the other parties due to fear of the NDP does affect the national picture.

The NDP  is not just in it for power - they are in it to make a difference for people. Ummm "They are in it for you."

The NDP often does not go far enough but they do make a difference -- even never having had a proportionate number of seats to votes or winning a government.