BC Green leader has previously voted Reform and sees BC Liberals as her natural ally
Interesting:
"B.C. Green party leader Jane Sterk, who voted for the Reform party in the 1993 federal election, said Wednesday that it's wrong to view her party's members as "just some group of cranky NDPers" who left the centre-left party.
Sterk said she has voted for Reform, the Conservatives and the Liberals, but never for the New Democrats.
The Green leader told the editorial board of The Vancouver Sun that she doesn't understand why many B.C. environmental activists continue to support the NDP, not her party.
Sterk also dismissed the suggestion that under the proportional representation model of the proposed STV-style electoral system, the Green party would be more inclined to form a coalition with the NDP than the B.C. Liberals.
"It's always odd to me that people see a natural alliance between the Green party and the NDP."
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/bc-election/Sterk+cranky+NDPer/1573115/...
Tories with composters
Your title is misleading perhaps to the point of libel. Where does she say the BC Liberals are the Green's natural ally? I also like how you clipped the article immediately before she says the natural coalition would be between the NDP and Liberals.
"I see our policy as profoundly different from the NDP," she added."I think the natural alliance is between the NDP and the Liberals."
Sterk said the NDP and the Liberals have similar policies on economic growth, climate change and crime -- and that what separates them is their stance on the roles of the public and private sectors.
"If there was not a Green party to vote for, I could not vote," she added.
Sterk voted for the federal Reform party in the 1993 election when she was living in Edmonton and running a computer store with her husband. (During that election, Sterk told the Edmonton Journal that she was voting Reform out of worry that the national debt would bankrupt the country.)
Sterk said she stopped voting for Reform when her local Reform MP, Ian McClelland, voted against amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act that banned discrimination against gay people.
I know a lot of people who have voted NDP and Reform, that party had a scary side for sure but they also spoke to a lot of people's feelings about the status quo parties and the electoral system. The Greens are trying to do the same thing, Sterk keeps mentioning crime and justice, she knows its a winner for them.
That said I'm not going to be especially happy about whomever I vote for this election, I like the values of the NDP membership, I'm just not crazy about their leadership.
"Sterk keeps mentioning crime and justice, she knows its a winner for them."
She may be talking about it, but i don't think its a "winner" for her or her so-called party. In the latest poll by Mustel, they asked people which party people thought would do the best job on various issues. On crime only FIVE PERCENT said the Green Party (I'm surprised its even that much - and i guess all five of them post on babble).
I can excuse an ordinary person for having ever cast a protest vote for the Reform Party. But Jane Sterk was supposedly an academic in the early 90s. There is no excuse whatsoever for her to have voted for a party that was openly anti-abortion, anti-immigrant, anti-French, anti-gay and in favour of two tiered health care - which is what the Reform party was all about in 1993!!. i might add that back then the Reform Party was also claiming that global warming did not exist. The fact that Sterk would have cheerfully voted for a neo-fascist party like the 1993 Reform Party tells us everything we need to know about her and her beliefs. Caveat emptor.
I agree with you, proles. And the title isn't just misleading, it's wrong. Jane never said or implied that. She was just responding to the perception that the Green Party is somehow and adjunct to the NDP. That perception seems rampant here on Rabble where I read people talking about how the Greens split the NDP vote. If people vote Green, then it's not an NDP vote.
It's pretty clear to me that what Jane is doing is opening up some space between her party and NDP to fight the inevitable "strategic voting." I also think that based on some past comments I've heard she's made, she feels burned by some high profile NDP insiders who appear to be playing games with electoral reform.
My 2 bits.
Yeah I'm not defending the Reform Party, I agree they had some truly awful positions but people voted for them for a variety of reasons.
You're saying five percent = 5 people posting on babble? That seems like a low sample size for a poll. Regardless, I think the fact people are talking about Sterk's position in a positive way and that she keeps repeating it suggests the position is working for the Greens. If you look at voting by age, the GP's support almost doubles for those under 35. In this election the Greens have done the best job at building support with younger voters.
Anyways, the title of this thread which states that Sterk "sees BC Liberals as her natural ally" isn't corroborated by the link you provided. I thought it was both wrong and illegal to attribute statements to people that they've never said.
I think she's one of these typical rightwing pretendy environmentalist phonies who takes the attitude that "the environment" (aka Gaia/Earth Goddess) is all that matters and if you raise any issues around social justice - the response is "let them eat cake" - its good for the environment for poor people to stay poor so that they have smaller carbon footprints!
"Yeah I'm not defending the Reform Party, I agree they had some truly awful positions but people voted for them for a variety of reasons. "
People vote for the Front National in France for a variety of "reasons" too. I'd like to know Sterk's reason for voting for an openly racist far-right party in 1993. She is an educated woman - she can't claim ignorance. there must have been something about Preston manning and his neo-fascist policies that she really, really liked.
All you have to do is read your own article. She stated that she was worried about the deficit.
All you have to do is read the entire article to see that Sterk and the Greens lean way more to the Liberals than the NDP. In fact she goes out of her way to distance herself from almost any socially progressive thing the NDP could support.
In 1993, if you were focused soley on the defict, you had a 3 options based on policy to vote for. The Liberals, the NDP and Reform. All three of those parties raised issues related to debt. To say you only supported Reform for reason around debt is frankly bs. Supporting Sterk based on such misinformation is clearly nothing but partisan spin.
Where in the article does Sterk say she views the "BC Liberals as her natural ally" as Stockholm's title suggests? That's utter BS.
The slant of the article is certainly distancing the GP from the NDP but I don't see a lot of difference from the multitude of articles out a few years ago which suggested that the Federal NDP preferred a Stephen Harper government to a Paul Martin one. In our partisan system parties are going to try to differentiate themselves from each other and fish where they think votes are to be had and journalists are going to spin it the way that suits the narrative they support.
The view of Stockholm that only uneducated fascists and racists supported the Reform party might be the way they recall the 90s out in Ontario but it was a little more complicated than that here. A lot of people were sympathetic to their calls for reforming the way government operated and I knew plenty of academics, teachers, ect who supported the Reform party and some who ran for them. I might have disagreed with them but in my opinion they weren't racist fascists and they held a lot of appeal for people who traditionally voted NDP here(many of whom aren't the clueless knuckledraggers Stockholm envisions).
That said, at least Stockholm's argument that she voted for the Reform party is based on fact unlike his assertion that she "sees BC Liberals as her natural ally". Since she said something completely different in the article he referenced, I'm guessing he pulled that from here.
There was never once an NDP leader, or even candidate who made the claim that they prefered a Harper government to a Martin one. Nice made up spin there. This was a Leader of a party in an interview doing everything she can to distance the Greens from anything progressive. What about that don't you understand.
The BC Green Leader is clearly anti-progressive and has a self admitted voting record to prove it.
I never said they did, I said articles suggested they did, and I agree it was spin but I didn't make it up. Do you want me to find the links or do you have a memory? They spun these articles around statements by NDPers that "Stephen Harper wasn't scary" ect., I didn't think those were the most astute types of statements to make at the time but I also didn't buy the spin which was similar in style to that used in this piece. Here is a newsflash 'The Green Party Leader is no 'cranky NDPer'..
I don't consider twinning the Port Mann bridge progressive, do you? Maybe you could quote the policies that Sterk supports which are so disgustingly unprogressive in this article. Is support for light rail considered reactionary in Ontario?
Well, I know my local NDP wouldn't encourage you and Stock to go around our riding saying everyone who voted for the Reform party was an unprogressive fascist racist or best case scenario an uneducated ignoramus. Writing off everyone in my riding with such an anti-progressive voting record would SERIOUSLY limit the NDP's ability to attract voters here.
What is the green party view on mary jane? Everyone I know (except the astmatics) smoke it or eat it.
In my view they are addicted but I say live and let toke. Are the greens into legalising it?
The NDP seems to abandon their token candidates, do the greens do that too?
How would they change the carbon tax to use the money better? I know the NDP want to abandon it and use another tax or a deficit in its place.
How will the greens use the money?
The are also the only party that openly supports electoral reform. Well, you know what, I miss having 5 partys (all electable) to vote for. I want that choice here too. I am fed up with commies or faschists as the choice. Why not something middle of the road?
And making 40 votes for fptp equal to 60 votes for stv for the referendum!
How the hell did the NDP that is supposed to stand for social justice ever allow that one in? It clearly aint about the poor, it is about protecting the position of the ndp party.
I think the only elected politician in Canada who stood up against it was Bernard Lord. And he lost in a wrong winner fptp election.
Politics here is pretty corrupt when the social democrats can let 41 beat 59 and say that it is ok.
It will never be ok.
Should someone who buys into that gigantic lie get your vote?
Brian
All you have to do is read the entire article to see that Sterk and the Greens lean way more to the Liberals than the NDP. In fact she goes out of her way to distance herself from almost any socially progressive thing the NDP could support.
In 1993, if you were focused soley on the defict, you had a 3 options based on policy to vote for. The Liberals, the NDP and Reform. All three of those parties raised issues related to debt. To say you only supported Reform for reason around debt is frankly bs. Supporting Sterk based on such misinformation is clearly nothing but partisan spin.
I do not think we need anymore proof that the BC Green Party was created and is sustained by the neo-con right, to try and split left of centre votes to keep the anti-progressives in power. Sterk is obviously a willing participant to those endeavours and has basically admitted as much. Natural Allies to the BC Liberals is definitely an apt reality.
Moreover, she must have supported the Reform until 1998, when Bill C33 was introduced. So that is 2 election cycles she voted Reform, not 1. And then of course by the next election cycle the Reforms were no more, so one has to realize she must have voted Canadian Alliance after.
That some portion of young people are supporting the Green Party means nothing more to me than their targeting of those who do not have a poltical clue, but whose hearts are in the correct place, to exploit and lie to about who they are and what they would do.
And of course she understands why many BC environmentalists refuse to vote Green Party, and support the NDP, what a whiney bunch of nonsense. Perhaps the few who have swallowed Green Party kool aid, should think about why the "many" BC environmentalists support the NDP, as opposed to the Green Party.
Let's have a look at what Reform stood for back in 1993-1998
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Party_of_Canada
So apparently, Sterk agrees with everything else the Reform stood for except discrimination against homosexuals. What a testiment to her "progressiveness", eh?! She definitely is NO cranky NDPer, and I am so happy she has cleared up who she is and what she stands for.
Moreover, in 1993 there was no "worrying" about the deficit policies coming from the Reform Party, so what a load of crap that was coming from Sterk. Unless of course it was social justice policies, aka "welfare state" she saw as creating a deficit and then that is an even more telling statement about who she is and what she stands for. Which again brings us back to the fact it is no damn wonder actual BC environmentalists are not supporting the Green Party.
And Brian, what a load of shit you spewed. There is more than 5 parties to choose from here too, that could considered to be equally as "electable' as those in Ireland, who do not get elected either, with Ireland's sexist and nepotstic electoral voting patterns.
Melovesproles you had better slap up some links, indicating any NDP support of Harper as not being scarey, as I call your comments a blatent fabrication, at best.
The fabrication is in the title of this thread that Sterk "sees BC Liberals as natural ally". Please show me the quote that indicates this because its not in the link Stockholm posted.
And I'm not fabricating anything, anyone who was paying attention to Canadian politics in 2005 should be able to remember the media spin and Liberal narrative that the NDP was colluding with Harper to bring down Martin. Broadbent's comments on Harper not being scary were used to support this:
I distinctly remember an interview(CBC I believe) at this time where the interviewer tried to back Layton into a corner in saying who he would rather work with in government after the election while trying to suggest that he wanted to work with Harper. Layton smartly completely avoided the trap and said he would work with whomever in order to pass legislation that helped Canadians. I don't see Sterk saying anything different, she isn't closing any doors and she's saying it shouldn't be a given that Green MLAs will be a rump of the NDP. That's just politics 101.
For the sake of the environment, I'm sure.
I was just going to post that as proof of the thread title's accuracy, coyote, thank you.
meloves, your link to Ed's alleged words does not work.
Wow, this thread is utterly ridiculous! Nothing less than I would expect from Stockholm, Remind, and co. when it comes to discussing the greens.
What part of this suggests she views the liberals as natural allies?
"I see our policy as profoundly different from the NDP," she added."I think the natural alliance is between the NDP and the Liberals."
Sterk said the NDP and the Liberals have similar policies on economic growth, climate change and crime -- and that what separates them is their stance on the roles of the public and private sectors.
"If there was not a Green party to vote for, I could not vote," she added.
Also, this is probably the only thing positive she would have to say about the B.C. Liberals(even if it is only slightly the case):
The Green party says the carbon tax needs to be $50 per tonne, rather than the current $10 a tonne, before people change their energy consumption habits.
Sterk said the Greens also favour a hard cap on B.C.'s ten largest carbon emitters and also support the phase-out of the nearly $1 billion in annual subsidies to the oil and gas industry.
Sterk said money from the carbon tax could be used to subsidize the development of new sustainable technologies, including renewable energy, light rail and retrofitted buildings.
Sterk called for the cancellation of all Gateway Program projects, including the construction of a new Port Mann Bridge.
Seriously people, grow up and find some real reasons to differenciate the NDP from other parties! This is really stupid!
Also, lots of ndp voters tend to switch back and forth between the ndp and the reform/alliance/conservatives federally, and I don't see y'all flaming them now.
Enough with the Tribalism!
BS, don't tell me not to be tribal when you clearly are, it is hyprocritical at best.
Sterk praised Gordo, for a useless carbon tax, thereby greenwashing it, at a time when serious environmentalists across BC are "spitting nails" at him. She has never made 1 comment strongly criticizing his heinious environmental record, during this election, and the platform only makes one or two mildly critical comments.
All of it is a statement on who her natural allies would be, the BC Liberals. Only a fool could miss it. Notwithstanding of course, is her Reform ideology, that would, and has, prevented any ties to the NDP, ever.
The "only" thing she did not like about the Reforms, according to her, was their anti-homosexual stance, as she said she only voted in 1993 for them and quit when they voted against human rights legislation for homosexuals, however that happened in 1998, another whole election cycle from 1993. And anyway she moved to BC in 1997, away from the riding where she said she stopped voting reform because of her Reform incumbant's anti-homosexual voting stance, which would NOT happen for another year. What's up with that inconsistancy?
It is my consistent and correct contention that the Green Party itself has been co-opted by the neo-con right to split the left. And she is a good fit for playing that roll being Reform and all. Remember, 1993 reformatories were all about getting rid of the welfare state in Canada, they do not believe in social justice policies, so I find her "caring" platform even more phoney than the first time I read it. I have an absolute disbelief in her desire for socially justice based environmental protection, now I know her Reform roots. Also, how many reformatories believe in global warming? Not even the switch federal voters that I know do. However, I do believe she is worried about pollutents in her air and water, and drug addiction diseases contaminating her, because the platforms says so.
Supporting my contention of no social justice in her heart, is her stated desire that the carbon tax, should not be returned to low income peoples, so much so, that she ignores the fact that she advocated stopping the 1 billion dollars for oil and gas exploartion subsidies and thus would have a billion to use for what she feels the carbon tax could be used for. Plus there is her platform stating under a Green plan that local communities will and must provide their own anti-poverty funding and actions.
Ah, and there we have the subtle "renewable energy" commentary. Which translates into IPP's who should get the carbon tax funding too, I guess, plus our rivers and lakes. So IMV, according to Sterk's view of the world is, the IPP's should get OUR hydro money, OUR rivers and OUR carbon tax money too. And remember we are not talking about local people IPP's, we are talking General Electric, and other major IPP players in the province, who are behind this takeover of rivers and lakes, that Sterk supports. Plus of course the oil and gas exploration companies who want to use up rivers and lakes for their gas and oil extraction processes, but can''t do so until they have "ownership" rights. Mighty nice of a so called environmental party to participate in what could be the single most catastrophic environmental event of all times.
And Sterk has the nerve to scream about auto bailouts, but yet the Canwest conglomerate, interviewing her, received their own huge bailout and apparently that is dandy fine with her that our taxpayer dollars fund a company who is clearly colonial war mongering and anti-democratic, at best. And they fit her phoney talking points to a tee; " ...requires government to move towards a more sustainable economy rather than simply funnelling stimulus money into outmoded industries." So she can apparently just ignore the tremendous environmental pollution that comes from colonial occupation and war, and that said wars are for what is polluting the environment, gas and oil, and go on trash the auto industry alone, as if they are the ones destroying the environment, and indeed apparently the world, and not the oil and gas exploiting companies.
What a fete of propaganda Sterk spewed, blamming the auto industry, she completely deflected the responsibility away from those who make the greatest wealth in the world, by exploiting the environment and peoples, the oil and gas companies and their owners.
Moreover, apparently the Green Party would download everything social justice wise onto the municipal districts, and I could not even begin to imagine what municipal taxation would be like, say nothing of immediate homelessness, as municipal districts just do not have the funding to provide their own social services at every level. And apparently the Green Party now wants to get rid of income tax and have only "consumption" taxation, it actually says so in their platform. One cannot say REFORM loud enough. Again, IMV, it is quite clear who her "natural" allies are, and it isn't with actual environmentalists and those who believe in true social justice, no matter how much she tries to say otherwise in the platform introduction of "caring".
Funny how she, Ms multi-millionaire, tries to sell IPP's as benifiting local communities, when indeed they are multi-nationals who to ship hydro/water off to the USA, and our own local power rates and water rates will sky rocket continually, just as they are doing now that we have to purchase from private, as opposed to our own. And the hydro rates are going up again next month 11%. Green my ass. It is corporate green washing propaganda geared to exploit the environmet and nothing more.
Sterk didn't "get" environmental concerns, though I allege she still hasn't, until 2001, when she saw those "Mexicans" ruining their environment and ocean, when she was to sail around the world in her retirement. Though apparently she failed, and still fails, to see who the true culprits in environmental destruction are, and blames the victims. And I see she is very adept at using her psychology degree to manipulate, making things seem cozy and warmly protective, when they are not, and it takes very little light to show how not they are.
Think I will further deconstruct Sterk and the Green Platform later today. Though I did just edit it a bit in case I don't get back to it today.
"Also, lots of ndp voters tend to switch back and forth between the ndp and the reform/alliance/conservatives federally, and I don't see y'all flaming them now."
There are people in France who used to be Communists who now support Jean Marie LePen - that doesn't make it OK and once again - Jane Sterk is not some "average Joe" with low political literacy - she is a very educated woman. If she supported the Reform Party - she had to have known EXACTLY what she was voting for. Ignorance is not an excuse in her case - and if it is then that's an even worse knock against her.
Of course she knows exactly what she was voting for, she has turned the BC GP into the same damn thing.
"Also, lots of ndp voters tend to switch back and forth between the ndp and the reform/alliance/conservatives federally, and I don't see y'all flaming them now."
There are people in France who used to be Communists who now support Jean Marie LePen - that doesn't make it OK and once again - Jane Sterk is not some "average Joe" with low political literacy - she is a very educated woman. If she supported the Reform Party - she had to have known EXACTLY what she was voting for. Ignorance is not an excuse in her case - and if it is then that's an even worse knock against her.
She actually stated that the Greens could garner 16 seats under BC-STV, and you are certain she knows how STV works? She "educated herself"? I would be surprised if they even ran that many in total, then again, When a Green Party member tells you they see no reason not to run 85 candidates under either system you just have to shake your head. See: CA submission 1231 from someone that actually did their homework.
Needless to say Jane Sterk has been such a flop as Green leader in this campaign that I can't imagine her sticking around much longer - not that anyone else probably wants the job.
Hopefully their next leader will be some rightwing "techie in a condo" who comes across like a really arrogant yuppie and who will blatantly go after the rightwing envronmentalist vote (I know its a bit of an oxymoron, but those people do exist). Maybe they can draft Jim Harris and get him to move to BC from Ontario!
I've seen this party flip flop enough without ever being in power that I would only think naturally most people would want to look another way. Sticking by convictions has to be part of there existence, if they want success in any electoral system.
Hopefully their next leader will be some rightwing "techie in a condo" who comes across like a really arrogant yuppie and who will blatantly go after the rightwing envronmentalist vote (I know its a bit of an oxymoron, but those people do exist).
You've been reading the Tyee, eh? 'Cause that "young techies in condo" line was used in this article (titled "Hanging out with Greens in suits") about Damian Kettlewell, the Greens' current deputy leader (whose riding is the condo-dominated Vancouver-False Creek) and who seems to fit that mould:
I've met the guy a few times and he does not come across, to me at least, as an "arrogant yuppie", but there's no doubt he's pro-business in his outlook. He ran against Campbell last time in Vancouver-Point Grey and The Georgia Straight endorsed him as their 'progressive pick' for Vancouver-False Creek. Generally they've endorsed NDP candidates except in ridings (such as those in the Fraser Valley and Richmond, and on the North Shore) where they've concluded the NDP has no chance to win anyways.
I recently had the pleasure of encountering a classic example of a "rightwing environmentalist". What do you think of this. Here was a guy who was a fervant environmentalist involved in all kinds of recycling and presevration initiatives and totally into sustainable development and saving every endangered species you can imagine, BUT he was also enthusiastically in favour of privatization and contracting out etc... because - he rationalizes - these are things that CUT ordinary people wages and if people wages are cut then its good for the environment because they will be forced to have a smaller carbon footprint!! Of course, you get this attitude from someone who is himself an upper middle class professional, but who takes the attitude that the price to be paid for cleaning up the environment shoudl be paid by people with less money than he has - certainly not by him or any of his wealthy friends. Shades of Marie Antoinette! Sigh.
There is a real class dimension to this new 'sustainability'/Green movement that I think often gets overlooked. It's easy to be anti-car when you can afford an $800,000 home close to downtown with access to proper public transit. It's easy to be pro-organic farming when you can afford to pay two or three times as much for food. It's easy to talk about reducing your carbon footprint when you can afford to pay twice as much for a hybrid vehicle.
I don't see the logic in how cutting people's wages is supposed to reduce their carbon footprint when all the evidence seems to be to the contrary.
Could you please slap up submission 1231, as I have dial up and it would take forever to down load the pdf.
Moreover, she tells GP supporters many things that are inaccurate, at best, and they believe them without thinking, puts good use to her psychology degree, apparently. I have given the Green Party platform a good going over, and I am goob-smacked as to the manipulaiton, fabrications, and Reform policies contained within it.
Am going to further tear it apart shortly I think. But just want to do some more fact finding into the pros and cons of STV, first.
Ya, I read the Kettlewell article too, and when taken in conjunction with the Green party platform, one can see the outight theft of the NDP's green jobs initiative, and trying to spin it as their own.
I also agree with class component occuring, as well as the sexist component to that class component.
Oh, also wanted to mention I know understand where this Green Party's rural peoples antipathy comes from amongst some here. Kettlewell of course, and indeed Sterk perhaps herself, as it won't do to have rural communities fighting back against the stealing of their resources.
Here you go Remind, let me know if it connects with you OK:
http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public/get_involved/submission/M/MCCRO...
Thanks ranger, I read it with interest.
The most important thing I got out it was that, STV, as it is being sold to us with super huge ridings, would indeed marginalize rural BC to the point of their having NO voices. It would even do so if we kept the same number of ridings we currently have.
And why all of sudden nowadays is this "new" Green Party on board for it?
Moving to a system like Nick Loenen proposes or any other form of STV would not provide universally fair proportional representation for all BC voters. It would lead to more adversarial politics and it also could have unknown consequences in the parts of BC, particularly our cities, with large ethnic minorities.
Because of these shortcomings and the difficulty for an average British Columbian to understand and explain how the votes are counted, such a system would have little chance of being voted in and the opportunity you have to reform our voting system to one that is more democratic will be squandered.
I hope the Members of the Citizens Assembly listen to the overwhelming majority of citizens who have offered input to your process calling for true proportional representation and a "made in BC" mixed member proportional system that voters can easily understand and will enthusiastically endorse in the May 2005 election.
Needless to say Jane Sterk has been such a flop as Green leader in this campaign that I can't imagine her sticking around much longer - not that anyone else probably wants the job.
Hopefully their next leader will be some rightwing "techie in a condo" who comes across like a really arrogant yuppie and who will blatantly go after the rightwing envronmentalist vote (I know its a bit of an oxymoron, but those people do exist). Maybe they can draft Jim Harris and get him to move to BC from Ontario!
The Green Party would be stupid to move in that direction and despite Sterk's own rightwing bias, they have ran a progressive campaign. If the Green party has any future then they'll shed the rightwing discredited market neoliberal strain that has such a prominent place in their Canadian leadership. Since the BC NDP seem to be increasingly moving towards the "third way" and appeals to rightwing populism when it comes to important issues, there is room for an opening on the left.
I find it amusing that melovesproles and others find hypocrisy in Stockholm claiming Sterk would see the BC Liberals as her natural ally (a reasonable assumption, given her past hard-right leanings and her current revulsion with the NDP), while they ignore the obvious hypocrisy in Sterk's ridiculous claim that "the natural alliance is between the NDP and the Liberals."
Well she backs that up by saying the approach of the NDP and the Liberals on crime(more prisons and cops, status quo on prohibition) and economic growth(a good thing for perpetuity) are essentially the same. I'd add the two parties support for a 60% threshold on electoral reform as well.
Sterk's voting record doesn't convince me that the Green party would simply prop up the BC Liberals the first chance they got. The party is more than just her and doing that would instantly lose all their credibility with a lot of Green party voters.
No, the Green Party have not ran a progressive campaign, Sterk is running a Reform Libertarian campaign, and making false promises in respect to marijuanna that she could not keep, should, in anyone's wildest imagination, they ever form government.
Supporting privatization of rivers is so far from progressive and environmentalist it is not funny.
Wanting to download all social programs to municipalities is not progressive.
Wanting consumption taxes only is not progressive.
Stigmatizing HIV positive people is not progressive
Supporting private hydro transmission is not progressive nor environmentally conscious.
Targeting rural people and poor people for carrying the burden of carbon footprints is not progressive, and neither is trying to infer rural people are the problem environmentally is not progressive.
Well she backs that up by saying the approach of the NDP and the Liberals on crime(more prisons and cops, status quo on prohibition) and economic growth(a good thing for perpetuity) are essentially the same. I'd add the two parties support for a 60% threshold on electoral reform as well.
Sterk's voting record doesn't convince me that the Green party would simply prop up the BC Liberals the first chance they got. The party is more than just her and doing that would instantly lose all their credibility with a lot of Green party voters.
So you're actually trying to support her in this absurdity?
There's partisan, and there's ridiculous, and you've crossed the line.
Which is also unsubstantiated BS, from several perspectives.
Apparently, you have not read the Green Party platform in respect to economic growth, nor in respect to how many of the Green Party policies are BC Liberal and Reform Party policies. We need not look at Sterk's hard right ideology, for proof of the natural fit the Green Party has with the BC Liberals, we need only look at the platform.
Moreover, the BCNDP want more prisons, only because 10 were closed, and now prisoners are living in hugely over crowded conditions that are inhumane and unsafe for prisoners and staff alike.
Green Party also calls for more police, and I have pointed this out to you prior, but you have apparently ignored it, as it is inconvienent to your mantra perhaps?
The last referendum was 60%, and there was no carrying on about it then. Only after it failed to get 60% has there been angst.
The have lost their credibility with a lot of Green Party voters based upon their current BC Liberal supporting actions and the platform. And they only stand to lose more.
ETA: And in 2005 the Green Party was completely against STV and now 4 years later, we are supposed to believe they are having hissy fits, about it not being supported by the BCNDP.
Also, one would think, if the majority of BC people were so hot to have STV, when the vote was 57% in the last election, and now they are more informed than then, there should be no issues with it reaching 60%, which is the same damn threshhold as last time, that no one whined about. So if, it has gone down in public support, like the polls suggest, it would appear to be because of more information available about it, which has prompted a decline in support, eh?
Claiming STV is more proportional than MMP as in McCrory's submission to the CA is ridiculous. It depends on average district magnitude in STV and a number of factors in the design of MMP systems, including electoral threshold, the proportion of single member constituency seats to list seats, and whether the list seats are compensatory or not.
So you're actually trying to support her in this absurdity?
There's partisan, and there's ridiculous, and you've crossed the line.
Whatever, I'm not especially partisan at all. If the BC NDP had come out and said they would support a 50+% result on electoral reform or not taken a reactionary position on crime and justice I would have supported them. I'm not happy about my choices period but I'm done with holding my nose and voting NDP while they continue to reinforce the rightwing narrative.
A 58% result will do that. When I voted in the last election I assumed the BC NDP would have pushed for electoral reform, this time I know better.
Anyways, the easiest way for the Green party to halve their support would be to prop up Gordon Cambell, its possible they are that stupid but I doubt it.
Just in re: the thread title.
A photo proudly posted by the Greens on their facebook group.
The Green Party would be stupid to move in that direction and despite Sterk's own rightwing bias, they have run a progressive campaign. If the Green Party has any future then they'll shed the right wing discredited market neoliberal strain that has such a prominent place in their Canadian leadership.
It really seems to me that there is a rogue element to the contemporary BC Greens. In Australia, in Germany, and certainly globally, the Greens continue to retain their progressive edge. In some countries they are farther left than others, but that commitment is always there. I wonder if Sterk plans to coordinate with other countries' efforts; there has always been a sense that the Green Party is a global movement. Perhaps, if Sterk wants to co-opt the Green image and turn into something that is radically at odds with the rest of the Green Party, she may want to rename the party, or add on a qualifier. This reminds me of when Protestanism split off from the Catholic Church, although of course the impact isn't nearly so profound.
Only a competing leader, like in this picture above who thinks that Gordon Campbell is swell, and posts it on their webpage to boot, is telemessaging their supporters who their natural ally is - amen. This says it all.
Fartful codger, TF.:D
And there ya have it meloves pictures speak a 1000 words, so I guess you will be holding your nose and voting Green Party, which is actually voting Gordo. LOLOLOL
This thread is useful only in demonstrating the Green Party as viewed from a partisan NDP position. It's interesting but not especially useful. What would be both interesting and useful would be a series of threads, one on how NDP view Greens, one on how NDP view Liberals, one on how Liberals view Greens, one on how Greens view NDP, and so on. The results would provide a more textured view of the world and could be used to build political bridges and allow more collaborative politics.
Some babblers don't like to hear this but there are progressive voices in every party; it's just that their priorities differ.
NDP supporters are most likely to prioritize social justice issues like gender equity, poverty and workers rights. The party is heavily influenced by unions due to the financial support they give.
Liberals are likely to argue that there will be no social justice without a strong economy and that strong economy depends on meritocracy and entrepreneurship. They'll argue that unions inhibit those qualities. They are funded by business and so wealthy individuals influence the party.
Greens will say that you won't have social justice or a healthy economy without a healthy environment. They might maintain that the Liberals and NDP have more in common than they have differences. They both are focused on growing the economy - they just differ over who should own and run it.
I think all sides have something valuable to add and the demonization that goes on is disturbing and counterproductive.
Here's the question: Is Rabble a meeting place for progressive voices or just an unofficial mouthpiece for the NDP? There are times I can't quite tell.
"Some babblers don't like to hear this but there are progressive voices in every party"
No, there are no "progressive voices" whatsoever in the federal Conservative party or in the BC Liberal/Social Credit/Conservative/Reform Party either - absolutely NONE!
Some babblers don't like to hear this but there are progressive voices in every party; its just that their priorities differ.
You left out Conservatives, particularly Libertarians, who argue that warmonging is against family values and that war spending runs against fiscal conservatism.
The thing is, ultimately you have one vote. And you have to look at what a given political party is going to do. What are the politicians going to enact at the end of the day? It doesn't matter if there are SOME progressive voices in the party if you are electing a leadership, or a majority, that isn't.
"Some babblers don't like to hear this but there are progressive voices in every party"
No, there are no "progressive voices" whatsoever in the federal Conservative party or in the BC Liberal/Social Credit/Conservative/Reform Party either - absolutely NONE!
You know, there actually are some that don't advocate that way publicly, but will do so behind the scenes, in some of the decisions that they make. Many people subscribe to certain politics because of family loyalty, business interests, etc. But, personally I still wouldn't vote that way, and they're certainly not numerous.
Ahhhhhhhhh reefermadness.....you have issues with the BC Green Party and Jane Sterk being exposed for what they are?! Because there is no shortage of NDP bashing going on around here at any given time.
And BTW, NDP supporters are most likely to prioritize around the areas of environmental concerns, human rights, workers rights, poverty, equality issues, a sustainable economy, and other social justice initiatives. Plus of course the reality in order for democracy to be sustained no one should own Crown lands.
As for the Green Party not being "concerned" with growing the economy, of course they are their platform details several areas. They like the Liberals believe developers and the rich should "own" everything.
Two things:
I have voted for most of the major parties federally or provincially at least once.
One must not assume that NDPers and Greens are two sides of the same leaf. Pardon the enviro-pun. If the Green Party were to disappear in BC, one must not assume that all of their votes would go to the NDP. Federally, I think if the Green Party disappeared, I remember reading an EKOS poll that about 40% of the Green vote would go to the NDP. Another 40% would go to the Liberals. Twenty percent would go to the Conservatives.
Two things:
I have voted for most of the major parties federally or provincially at least once.
One must not assume that NDPers and Greens are two sides of the same leaf. Pardon the enviro-pun. If the Green Party were to disappear in BC, one must not assume that all of their votes would go to the NDP. Federally, I think if the Green Party disappeared, I remember reading an EKOS poll that about 40% of the Green vote would go to the NDP. Another 40% would go to the Liberals. Twenty percent would go to the Conservatives.
I think the poll probably included a goodly percentage that wouldn't vote, probably more than would vote conservative.
That might be true, Policywonk. I think the ratios of 2:2:1 are approximate. They do show that the NDP and Greens are synonymous. It's like when the Reform and PCs merged (or Reform takeover) together. Twenty percent Reform support plus 20% PC support did not equal 40% Conservative support. Some voters went to other parties.
Certainly at the federal level the media pundits tended to peddle this nonsense about the green party splitting the NDP vote and in fact the Liberals went to great lengths to pin this. In reality, most of the votes the Green party got were from dentists wives who used to vote Liberal.
But I think people are now equating the federal Green party with the provincial party, when they're not the same thing at all.
Really, when we analyze the results are you going to automatically add the Green total to the Liberal one? i guess it will really be a huge blowout then. I'll be holding my nose for sure but I'm used to that.
I don't think its that funny all our electoral choices suck and that it looks like BC is going to bury electoral reform. Honestly, electoral politics in Canada are looking more and more like a big joke but not a very funny one. Not voting looks poised for a bright popular future.
Ahhhhhhhhh reefermadness.....you have issues with the BC Green Party and Jane Sterk being exposed for what they are?! Because there is no shortage of NDP bashing going on around here at any given time.
No. I have issues with cheap shots and mindless tribalism. I'm just funny that way.
You think that there is 'NDP bashing' on babble that can compare with the following cheap shots? Show me some examples.
(there were 2.5 million people who voted for Reform in 1993. Why don't we hunt them all down?)
(could you have any less proof the Green Party was created and is sustained by the neo-con right? what a nutty theory )
They like the Liberals believe developers and the rich should "own" everything.
Again, don't tell me. Show me.
Certainly at the federal level the media pundits tended to peddle this nonsense about the green party splitting the NDP vote and in fact the Liberals went to great lengths to pin this. In reality, most of the votes the Green party got were from dentists wives who used to vote Liberal.
Does this mean that "dental wives" will be the new hot swing demographic in North American politics?
Does this mean that "dental wives" will be the new hot swing demographic in North American politics?
And neo-cons with composters.
Again, don't tell me. Show me.
Righty Oh! Here's a start.......
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/08/national/08GREE.html
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/campaign_diary/pa/archive/2006/08/...
http://pennsylvaniaprogressive.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/10/romanelli_a...
Below all from from Wikipedia........
Former GPC, OGP leader Jim Harris: Harris's leadership of the Green Party was controversial. He described himself as an ecological conservative and eco-capitalist, and attempted to shift the party to the right on some issues.[18] Some party members criticized Harris in August 2004 for hiring David Scrymgeour, a former national director of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and aide to Jim Flaherty, as an advisor.[19] His opponents also accused him of shifting too much authority to the party leadership, while reducing the power of local associations.
Following the 2004 election, Harris was challenged for the leadership by Tom Manley, a prominent party activist from eastern Ontario. Manley argued that Harris was shifting the GPC too far to the right, and was abandoning the party's traditional emphasis on local production in favour of greater accommodation with corporate interests.[20] Harris won re-election as GPC leader in August 2004 on the first ballot count, though by a narrower margin than before.[21] Manley was later appointed deputy leader, but left the GPC in 2005 to join the Liberals.
A number of prominent Greens tendered their resignations during Harris's tenure as leader, with many accusing him of mismanaging the party.[22]
Fromer Dupty GPC leader David Chernushenko: On November 10, 2006, Prime Minister Stephen Harper appointed Chernushenko as a member of the National Round Table on Environment and the Economy, a panel that advises Ottawa on environmental policy.
Chernushenko resigned as deputy leader of the Green Party in July 2007 in order to devote more time to his business and the National Roundtable and to make his first film Be the Change.
Present OGP Leader Frank De Jong: Like Harris, De Jong is an eco-capitalist. He defines his political philosophy as "socially progressive, fiscally conservative, and environmentally aware".[2] He has long supported conservative economic policies, including a gradual shift from the taxation of incomes to the taxation of natural resources. Recently, he has also spoken against extensive government subsidies and funding for crown corporations.
Want more?
Oh yes, calling exposure of who the BC Green Party tribalism is so non-tribal, as you are being blindly Green Party partisan at the detriment of the environment, and labelling people as tribal, is not a cheap shot I guess, eh?!
You bet there is, and why would I, you know what they were and are, as well as I. And we need only look at your comments anyway.
Tories with composters
she's one of these typical rightwing pretendy environmentalist phonies
No lies, she does, it is, and she is.
(there were 2.5 million people who voted for Reform in 1993. Why don't we hunt them all down?)
Why? We know exactly where they all are now, voting CPC, BC Liberal and leading the BC Green Party.
Okay, will back track a bit on that, as a lot of correct minded people originally thought getting a Green Party going in BC would help the environmental causes, so they worked hard to do so, however, their mistake was letting it be highjacked by the neo-con right, and big oil and gas, in order to split the left vote.
Again, don't tell me. Show me.
Well, that has already been done, and you apparently, given this comment, have ignored it each and every time.
Recap:
1. Supporting Gordo's run of the river privatization schemes for oil and gas companies, huge electrical firms, and other large private enterprises that will destroy the environment, as well as social justice and democracy. Contained within this framework is the privatization of crown lands and giving rights to it for 40 years to the uber rich.
2. Advocate for a useless carbon tax, and then take that advocation a step further by stating in their platform the "revenue neutral" component of tax, should be removed and the money used elsewhere, rather than give it to the poor and fixed income peoples..
3. Advocate dumping of social services and programs unto the municipalities
4. Lack of condemnation of any of Gordo's actions, environmentally, his corruption, or otherwise, and proudly posting a picture of the Green Party leader with Gordo on the Green Party facebook page.
5. Disparaging rural peoples as the problem with the environment, as opposed to where the real problems lay. Urban centric and technocracy ideologies will do nothing for the environment, nor social justice.
6. Electing a Reform Party supporter as your Green Party leader
7. Advocating for flat consumption taxes, and lowering of income tax rates.
8. Misinforming about marijuana policies in order to try and get the marijuana crowd vote.
That should be sufficient, but I could add more.
oh yeah, reefer, forgot this jewel from the Toronto Star from the last federal election:
"I would not say for a moment that Mr. Harper has the right locked up. As a matter of fact, I'm going after his votes," she says of the Prime Minister and October's federal election.
"The word conservative, to me, isn't a dirty or bad word," May adds in an interview.........
......This emphasis attracted candidates like Adrian Visentin, a former Reform party member and Canadian Alliance candidate now running for the Greens in Vaughan.......
"Initially I said, 'I can't join your party, I'm not a lefty.' And they said, 'We're actually not lefties.' And when I read the whole program I said, 'Shoot, you're not! I agree with all this,' " Visentin said in an interview.
Link
Excellent mojo!
Sterk's profession of environmental concerns are at best incoherent.
Anybody who votes for the Green party in BC thinking they are voting for the environment are deluded.
The privatizing, corporatist parties that Sterk shows she most favours over the so-called "socialism" of the NDP are diametrically oppossed to any real public commonweal with serious public stewadship of the environment, instead they are agents of private management and control over water and land for exploitation and profit.
You have to ask what she actually prefers in them and their supporters.
Sterk won't be around after this election. Regardless of the Rank and File of the BC Greens and some overly enthusiastic posters here, Sterk is more of a problem to the beliefs of the Green Party, then Carole James is to the NDP.
Sterk sounds far more comfortable as a Liberal Apologist then a leader of a party. The BC Green Party may do well, but that will be inspite of a terrible leader.
However, Sterk is exactly what is wrong with the leaders of the Green Party and the eco capitalists. They are far more dangerous to the environment and the economy then any other party.
Their economic policies are disturbing. That said, there is much of the GP that appears to be coopted from the NDP, or more importantly, things the NDP needs to implement should they ever achieve government.
Sterk meanwhile appears to be implementing tactics similar to the Federal GP. However, I don't think she has succeeded, yet I expect a decent GP vote. Maybe 14% on the lowside.
There are numerous things in the Green Party list of to do's that every NDP government in BC has implimented/upheld, since I have been here. And I believe those things were put there in order to siphon off NDP votes. However gordo got rid of them and he also got rid of some that the social credit put in place, which indicates how freakin far right he is.
Then there are the "other" things Sterk and the Green Party advocated like eco-capitalism, and pure consumption taxes with no income taxes, compacting people into high density areas, and the down loading of social justice activities to the municipal districts, which are not only dangerous and harmful to the environment, but to humans as well.
I do not believe the Green Party will get into the double digits today when all the dust has settled, there can't be that many lack wits.
I sure hope someone in the NDP is in touch with this fellow. Opportunities like this do not come around that often, and the NDP needs all the allies it can get.
Maybe a new approach is needed in the BC NDP. Instead of always focusing on the differences, why not explore what the BC NDP and the Greens have in common, and explore the possibility of an alliance. There are many NDP environmentalists who are pained over the continual split of the environmental vote.
Green deputy leader Damian Kettlewell open to NDP alliance for next B.C. electionBy Carlito Pablo
With the B.C. Greens' disappointing election results and the defeat of the single-transferable-vote system in the referendum on May 12, it doesn't appear that the party will be within striking distance of Victoria anytime soon.
But, with a small but stubborn constituency, the Greens aren't likely to call it quits.
So, how about a change of tactics?
In a phone interview with the Straight, the party's deputy leader, Damian Kettlewell, was quite receptive to the idea of an NDP-Green alliance.
"I don't see it farfetched," Kettlewell said today (May 15), three days after the election.
Nor does he regard the idea as something only possible in the distant future.
Asked whether an alliance might become a working reality as early as the next election in 2013, Kettlewell said, "I think it depends on the wishes of our members. It depends on the wishes of the NDP members."
"I think the Liberals will likely win again next time, unless there is some partnership with some other parties," he added.
In the May 12 election, the B.C. Greens snagged just 8.08 percent of the popular vote, down from the 9.17 percent support they garnered in 2005.
The Greens will have a full day to reflect on what happened in the election and ponder their future plans, when members gather for the party's annual general meeting on May 23 at the Victoria Edelweiss Club.
One item in the agenda reads: "Strategic Focus for the next 4 years: How to Create Winning Conditions for 2013?"
So, why didn't the Greens do better in the last election?
Kettlewell has two explanations.
"There was a push by the NDP to go for Green voters at the last minute, the last week of the campaign, and that had an impact," he said. "It was British Columbians' first time to get to know [Green leader] Jane Sterk, so I think that had an impact as well."
http://www.straight.com/article-222039/damian-kettlewell-open-ndpgreen-a...
Doesn't sound like Sterk is going anywhere, so the GP is still firmly in the control of the Reformatories.
Which means we can assume support for the B.C. Greens will continue to erode. I always thought that if you were a party leader and you led your party to a REALLY bad showing, you pretty much had to quit. Why would Sterk even WANT to hang on? She can't honestly think there's any hope the Greens would do better next time under her leadership.
Here Jane is talking about winners and she isn't one for sure and although its politics as ususal as parties look for support from the most unlikely places. Does it matter what the Green party leader thinks? Not to me that is a for sure and to the rest of British Columbians as her party again goes without the much needed support.
And kittlewell was removed as a deputy over that story ....just FYI
Hey, how about a little TLC here?
Hasn't anyone heard of Dale Carnegie's "How to win friends and influence people"?
THe NDP needs all the friends it can get.
And there ya go northenreport that shows you just how much the Green Party leader and some of its supporters hate social justice and the NDP. They got rid of their best performer as deputy leader. It also indicates just who they really are, yet again, pawns of the BC Liberals and Reform/CA/CPC.
They use alleged policies, that they know they would never instrument if they ever got anywhere in order to suck people in. And it only takes a half a brain to realize this too.
Can't you feel the love!
Hopefully the Alberta NDPers pay a visit - the NDP needs to get these folks on board. They could be the beginning of the NDP right-wing "Awful' movement.
Seriously though, the NDP do need to talk with these ex-Greens.
Alberta Greens no longer a political party
http://www.ffwdweekly.com/calgary-blogs/klaszus-corner/2009/07/15/albert...
Wow, that was quite the story on the AB Green Party goings on.
A split between the right and left within the party and the right won of course as the Green Party is not left in anyway shape or form.