Green Party of Canada

256 posts / 0 new
Last post
JKR

trotwood73 wrote:

Here's a question for the Green Party leader: why did she vote against the NDP motion tabled today by the NDP Environment critic, Megan Leslie (Halifax):

“That this House: (a) agree with many Canadians and the International Energy Agency that there is grave concern with the impacts of a 2 degree rise in global average temperatures; (b) condemn the lack of effective action by successive federal governments since 1998 to address emissions and meet our Kyoto commitments; and (c) call on the government to immediately table its federal climate change adaptation plan.”

Line (b) that included "condemn the lack of effective action by successive federal governments since 1998" ensured that the motion had no chance of gaining support as Liberals and Conservatives are not about to vote for a motion that puts them in the role of being the culprit. So what was the purpose of this motion? If the purpose of the motion was to combat climate change than the motion should have been written in a way that would have gained as much support as possible. The motion could have been written in a way that gave it a chance to pass or at least gain the support of the entire opposition. If The Liberals, May and a dozen Conservatives could have been brought on side the motion would have passed. But it was written in a way that the Liberals could not vote for it and that paved the way for the Conservatives to be able to claim that 3 out of 4 parties are on their side on the issue. This motion ended up being a victory for the those that argue that little can be done to combat climate change.

Why didn't the NDP work with the Greens and Liberals to write up a motion that could have achieved broad consensus on the opposition side? Omitting line b could have got the Liberals on side and that would have brought May on side too. Omitting line b might have even allowed some Conservatives to vote for the motion and the motion would have passed and a victory would have been won in the battle against man made climate change. And if such a victory had occured, the NDP would have gained praise for instigating it in a non-partisan way.

jjuares

JKR wrote:

trotwood73 wrote:

Here's a question for the Green Party leader: why did she vote against the NDP motion tabled today by the NDP Environment critic, Megan Leslie (Halifax):

“That this House: (a) agree with many Canadians and the International Energy Agency that there is grave concern with the impacts of a 2 degree rise in global average temperatures; (b) condemn the lack of effective action by successive federal governments since 1998 to address emissions and meet our Kyoto commitments; and (c) call on the government to immediately table its federal climate change adaptation plan.”

Line (b) that included "condemn the lack of effective action by successive federal governments since 1998" ensured that the motion had no chance of gaining support as Liberals and Conservatives are not about to vote for a motion that puts them in the role of being the culprit. So what was the purpose of this motion? If the purpose of the motion was to combat climate change than the motion should have been written in a way that would have gained as much support as possible. The motion could have been written in a way that gave it a chance to pass or at least gain the support of the entire opposition. If The Liberals, May and a dozen Conservatives could have been brought on side the motion would have passed. But it was written in a way that the Liberals could not vote for it and that paved the way for the Conservatives to be able to claim that 3 out of 4 parties are on their side on the issue. This motion ended up being a victory for the those that argue that little can be done to combat climate change.

Why didn't the NDP work with the Greens and Liberals to write up a motion that could have achieved broad consensus on the opposition side? Omitting line b could have got the Liberals on side and that would have brought May on side too. Omitting line b might have even allowed some Conservatives to vote for the motion and the motion would have passed and a victory would have been won in the battle against man made climate change. And if such a victory had occured, the NDP would have gained praise for instigating it in a non-partisan way.

Wthout some Conservatves breaking party ranks the moton doesn't matter.Perhaps Cullen beleved that they had no chance of getting that support so they went for simply embarassing the other partes.

mark_alfred

The motion was fine.  The only reason she opposed the motion is because she's a Liberal sycophant.  And the only reason the Liberals opposed it is because they haven't changed and are still in denial.

janfromthebruce

May said it didn't go far enough. Hmm, so doing nothing is better than doing something - gotcha. In the end, the 1 Green Party member of parliament did not stand up for the environment, and did not take one small step in the right direction. May looks silly.

Unionist

trotwood73 wrote:

More on Elizabeth May voting against the NDP motion this evening.

She blogged about it: Why I voted against the NDP climate motion .

It looks like she's trying to spin this because of how bad it looks. She essentially says the motion (it was NOT a bill) did not go far enough. Very lame.

Very lame indeed. She pulled out her microscope and found a reason not to vote for a motion condemning successive governments for their failure to act on climate change.

She probably learned this trick at the feet of Jack Layton - from April 2007:

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2007/04/24/liberal-motion.html]MPs defeat motion to pull troops from Afghanistan by 2009[/url]

Quote:
A Liberal motion to end Canadian combat operations in southern Afghanistan by February 2009 was defeated in the House of Commons on Tuesday.

The NDP joined the Conservatives in defeating the motion, which lost by a close vote of 150-134.

NDP Leader Jack Layton said the vote was nothing more than a green light for an extension to the mission. The NDP wants the troops out immediately.

Of course, the Liberals were playing an even worse partisan game in 2007. Had they actually wanted the motion to pass, they could easily have negotiated with the NDP to come up with a compromise resolution. They had no such interest.

E. May pretends to call for unity, but puts her partisanship first and does damage to the movement to get rid of Harper. What stopped her from expressing her concerns to the NDP and seeking a compromise? We can all learn lessons from that.

[edited]

autoworker autoworker's picture

There never was a movement to get rid of Harper, the Labrador by-election put paid to that. It's always been about the NPD's Faustian bargain for power. The motion, that May wisely rejected, was nothing more than meaningless posturing. The Dippers appear to be truly spooked by the spectre of a Liberal resurgence. The brass ring was so close, but is now increasingly out of reach. Pouncing on May is simply pathetic.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

AW, you wont' answer me, you never do, but, why does the NDP have to be perfect? If I recall right, you are a Liberal. Given all the horrible things the Libs did in government starting in the late 70s, why don't you have the same contempt for them? So the NDP is trying to get power. From my perspective, they can't be any worse then what we've had, and on top of that, will be better.

So, how about it? Why does the NDP have to be perfect? How come you don't set the same standard for the Liberals? I'm going to vote NDP. If they form a government and act like Liberals, I'll stop voting. Period. But they deserve their chance. The Libs and the Tories have had theirs. The NDP can't do any worse.

janfromthebruce

autoworker wrote:

righto

autoworker autoworker's picture

PrairieDemocrat15 wrote:

May pretends she is all about centre-left co-operation and non-partisan ship - she is not. The Green Party was bragging about not running a candidate in Labrador (to defeat the Cons), but she ran candidates in Victoria and Calgary Centre (and arguably gave the latter seat to the Cons by splitting the vote). The difference: the Greens had a chance in Victoria and Calgary but don't in Labrador. May and her party are a joke.

Judging from the latest poll, the NPD don't have a chance in Labrador either. Co-operation is a dead issue now. Let's move on, and adjust accordingly....

PrairieDemocrat15

May pretends she is all about centre-left co-operation and non-partisanship - she is not. The Green Party was bragging about not running a candidate in Labrador (to defeat the Cons), but she ran candidates in Victoria and Calgary Centre (and arguably gave the latter seat to the Cons by splitting the vote). The difference: the Greens had a chance in Victoria and Calgary but don't in Labrador. May and her party are a joke.

janfromthebruce

yes, let's move on until the next byelection in which May, in another riding in which the Greens have no hope or perhaps not even a riding association to ride the Liberal pony again.

PrairieDemocrat15

autoworker wrote:
PrairieDemocrat15 wrote:

May pretends she is all about centre-left co-operation and non-partisan ship - she is not. The Green Party was bragging about not running a candidate in Labrador (to defeat the Cons), but she ran candidates in Victoria and Calgary Centre (and arguably gave the latter seat to the Cons by splitting the vote). The difference: the Greens had a chance in Victoria and Calgary but don't in Labrador. May and her party are a joke.

Judging from the latest poll, the NPD don't have a chance in Labrador either. Co-operation is a dead issue now. Let's move on, and adjust accordingly....

That's beside the point. At least the NDP is sticking to its principles. Mulcair said no opposition co-operation and the NDP hasn't done anything to co-operate with the other non-Cons. Whether its in Victoria (where the NDP were the frontrunners) or Labrador (where they are a non-factor).

May only decides to co-operate when her party has no chance of winning on its own.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

May could prove her sincerity by asking the Libs to not run a candidate in Elmwood/Transcona next time. I am NOT holding my breath.

autoworker autoworker's picture

Actually, I think the Greens should only run candidates where they present an alternative to the alternative.

lagatta

Just go on supporting your frigging bourgeois party.

autoworker autoworker's picture

Somehow, I just can't see Mulcair in solidarity with the Proles. Actually, he seems rather bourgeois, himself.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

autoworker wrote:
Somehow, I just can't see Mulcair in solidarity with the Proles. Actually, he seems rather bourgeois, himself.

Ridiculous.

autoworker autoworker's picture

Arthur Cramer wrote:

autoworker wrote:
Somehow, I just can't see Mulcair in solidarity with the Proles. Actually, he seems rather bourgeois, himself.

Ridiculous.

Really? He seems more in his element ranting in the Commons, than amongst us commoners. He smacks of elitism, insolated by his coterie of hangers- on.

wage zombie

autoworker wrote:

Really? He seems more in his element ranting in the Commons, than amongst us commoners. He smacks of elitism, insolated by his coterie of hangers- on.

Are you just making this up as you go?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

autoworker wrote:
Arthur Cramer wrote:

autoworker wrote:
Somehow, I just can't see Mulcair in solidarity with the Proles. Actually, he seems rather bourgeois, himself.

Ridiculous.

Really? He seems more in his element ranting in the Commons, than amongst us commoners. He smacks of elitism, insolated by his coterie of hangers- on.

Why is it you Libs project so much?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Why are Liberal and NDP partisans fighting over Mulcair in a thread about the Green Party? 

Undecided

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Why are Liberal and NDP partisans fighting over Mulcair in a thread about the Green Party? 

Undecided

Because they wanted to see time fly?

autoworker autoworker's picture

Arthur Cramer wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Why are Liberal and NDP partisans fighting over Mulcair in a thread about the Green Party? 

Undecided

Because they wanted to see time fly?

Indeed, I'm a perfect fool. I forgot that this Green Party thread is exclusively intended for bashing Elizabeth May, and the Greens. Mea culpa.

jerrym

JKR wrote:

I don't see why this has to be an either-or argument. The solution to man made climate change probably includes a combination of cap and trade, a tax on carbon, progressive tax credits, regulations, incentives, and education. It's a complicated problem that can be dealt with through consensus driven evidence based policy formation. Neo-cons rightfully fear consensus driven evidence based policies.

While the above steps are good, Canada needs more than this passive approach. It needs to spend significant amounts on green energy technology which is dropping in cost at 30% a year and in some areas is now competitive in price with non-renewable energy without the environmental problems associated with fossil fuels. China, and even the US under Obama to some extent although they are now somewhat hamstrung by the Republican House of Representatives, have seen the handwriting on the wall. 

China accounts for 30% of the world’s investment in green energy, outspending the U.S.—the number two market for green energy-- by almost 2:1. That's according to a new report from the The Pew Charitable Trust based on 2012 data. Green investments in China in 2012 rose 20% to $65 billion while they fell 37% in the U.S. to just under $36 billion.

“Clean energy will be one of the biggest industries of the next 10, 20 years, and we’re handing it to China,” says Ramez Naam, computer scientiss and author of the new book The Infinite Resource: The Power of Ideas on a Finite Planet. Green energy will “become a multi-trillion-dollar industry." China is not only spending more money on green energy, it’s also writing laws and changing regulations will help attract more of those green dollars in the future. 

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/china-overtakes-u-lead-green...

Furthermore, China plans "to spend more than £1 trillion over the next five years on green energy, transport and advanced manufacturing. ...

Much of the emphasis on the emerging industries and the $1.7 trillion investment was focused on clean energy and clean energy technology." 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/china-business/8904733/China-unveils-...

If the Canadian government does not start in moving towards developing a green energy industry within the next few years, we are in danger of becoming an energy dinosaur. 

 

JKR

jerrym wrote:

JKR wrote:

I don't see why this has to be an either-or argument. The solution to man made climate change probably includes a combination of cap and trade, a tax on carbon, progressive tax credits, regulations, incentives, and education. It's a complicated problem that can be dealt with through consensus driven evidence based policy formation. Neo-cons rightfully fear consensus driven evidence based policies.

While the above steps are good, Canada needs more than this passive approach. It needs to spend significant amounts on green energy technology which is dropping in cost at 30% a year and in some areas is now competitive in price with non-renewable energy without the environmental problems associated with fossil fuels. 

If the price is dropping precipitously, won't Canada just start adopting green energy when it becomes more affordable than the alternatives?

jerrym

JKR wrote:

jerrym wrote:

JKR wrote:

I don't see why this has to be an either-or argument. The solution to man made climate change probably includes a combination of cap and trade, a tax on carbon, progressive tax credits, regulations, incentives, and education. It's a complicated problem that can be dealt with through consensus driven evidence based policy formation. Neo-cons rightfully fear consensus driven evidence based policies.

While the above steps are good, Canada needs more than this passive approach. It needs to spend significant amounts on green energy technology which is dropping in cost at 30% a year and in some areas is now competitive in price with non-renewable energy without the environmental problems associated with fossil fuels. 

If the price is dropping precipitously, won't Canada just start adopting green energy when it becomes more affordable than the alternatives?

Only if you want to import all your green technology and become a technology backwater with a lower standard of living. China is spending all this money on developing green technology not simply to improve its environment, although that is part of the reason, but to be the dominant country economically as the world shifts in this direction.

JKR

jerrym wrote:

JKR wrote:

jerrym wrote:

JKR wrote:

I don't see why this has to be an either-or argument. The solution to man made climate change probably includes a combination of cap and trade, a tax on carbon, progressive tax credits, regulations, incentives, and education. It's a complicated problem that can be dealt with through consensus driven evidence based policy formation. Neo-cons rightfully fear consensus driven evidence based policies.

While the above steps are good, Canada needs more than this passive approach. It needs to spend significant amounts on green energy technology which is dropping in cost at 30% a year and in some areas is now competitive in price with non-renewable energy without the environmental problems associated with fossil fuels. 

If the price is dropping precipitously, won't Canada just start adopting green energy when it becomes more affordable than the alternatives?

Only if you want to import all your green technology and become a technology backwater with a lower standard of living. China is spending all this money on developing green technology not simply to improve its environment, although that is part of the reason, but to be the dominant country economically as the world shifts in this direction.

As it is we already can't compete with China's low manufacturing costs. It makes sense for China to manufacture green technology in their country as they already manufacture everything else because they have a comparitive advantage in labour costs. In Canada we already can't compete with their manufacturing costs so if a Canadian company would come up with new cutting edge green technology they would probably mass produce it in a low wage country like China. One of China's big green corporations could also buy out our small green company if it becomes a threat. And if China produces cheap green technology, they'll have to export it to places like Canada that will benefit from both the low cost and environmental benefit without having to subsidize Canadian green corporations that will increase government spending, deficits, and debt  and weaken our ability to pay for things like, medicare, education, etc....

jerrym

JKR wrote:

jerrym wrote:

JKR wrote:

jerrym wrote:

JKR wrote:

I don't see why this has to be an either-or argument. The solution to man made climate change probably includes a combination of cap and trade, a tax on carbon, progressive tax credits, regulations, incentives, and education. It's a complicated problem that can be dealt with through consensus driven evidence based policy formation. Neo-cons rightfully fear consensus driven evidence based policies.

While the above steps are good, Canada needs more than this passive approach. It needs to spend significant amounts on green energy technology which is dropping in cost at 30% a year and in some areas is now competitive in price with non-renewable energy without the environmental problems associated with fossil fuels. 

If the price is dropping precipitously, won't Canada just start adopting green energy when it becomes more affordable than the alternatives?

Only if you want to import all your green technology and become a technology backwater with a lower standard of living. China is spending all this money on developing green technology not simply to improve its environment, although that is part of the reason, but to be the dominant country economically as the world shifts in this direction.

As it is we already can't compete with China's low manufacturing costs. It makes sense for China to manufacture green technology in their country as they already manufacture everything else because they have a comparitive advantage in labour costs. In Canada we already can't compete with their manufacturing costs so if a Canadian company would come up with new cutting edge green technology they would probably mass produce it in a low wage country like China. One of China's big green corporations could also buy out our small green company if it becomes a threat. And if China produces cheap green technology, they'll have to export it to places like Canada that will benefit from both the low cost and environmental benefit without having to subsidize Canadian green corporations that will increase government spending, deficits, and debt  and weaken our ability to pay for things like, medicare, education, etc....

Canada needs to find a niche in green energy technology. It obviously cannot lead in everything. However, if in any technology you have no research and development of your own, you are ignored by others in the industry and their countries. Remaining a fossil fuel country and being a late adapter of green technology will leave us out in the cold. Germany and many other European countries, despite its high wage scale, has been actively promoting and developing several forms of green technology.

socialdemocrati...

I think we've been talking about getting a head start on other countries in the "green economy" or "green industries" or whatever, since at least 2007. I completely agree with that goal. But 6 years later, I'm not sure there's much of a head start to be had. I keep hearing that China has a huge competitive advantage now.

 

autoworker autoworker's picture

Most of the labour intensity, in regard to solar, is in its installation, maintenance, and management of the grid. The McGuinty Liberals actually had the right idea in following the German lead, but made a complete mess of it, and has set us back, in Ontario, perhaps a decade or more-- not that the the coal/petcoke-oil/gas-nuclear industries are complanning. Keystone looks to be approved, and we're already suffering the result of Ralph Klein's infamous "dinosaur farts". Jane Jacobs was indeed precient about the approaching dark age.

mark_alfred

Green Party currently has a petition on its site about the National Farm Animal Care Council's (NFACC) pig code of practice.  So, have a look and sign.

mark_alfred

Elizabeth May makes a statement on the group Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME).  link

Stockholm

Its very likely that the Green Party will get less than 5% of the vote in each of the four byelections coming up on Monday. what will this say for their viability as a party? Are they really a party at all or just a one woman show?

Winston

I don't know, Stockholm...The Liberals got about 5% in Brandon-Souris in 2011, what does that say about their viability? The NDP got less than 5% in most of the ridings in the country through the 1990s - what does that say about their viability? THe NDP is likely to get less than 5% on Monday in Provencher...

Not really a great argument...

Stockholm wrote:

Its very likely that the Green Party will get less than 5% of the vote in each of the four byelections coming up on Monday. what will this say for their viability as a party? Are they really a party at all or just a one woman show?

 

DLivings

Elizabeth May may be Green First, but she's Liberal second.   Unless you believe this gaffe she made in a radio interview, in which case she's a Liberal first.

http://youtu.be/_dKpAq-eAWM

Stephane Dion (2007), "I will fight for 307 Liberals, plus Elizabeth May."

http://canuckpolitics.com/2007/04/13/green-liberal-alliance/

When Liberal leader Dion agreed not to run a Liberal against May in the Central Nova riding in Nova Scotia, a local Liberal voter expressed, ""I'm not voting NDP and I'm not voting Conservative," he said.   "I have met Elizabeth May, and I have an idea of what kind of a person she is, and I know she has a Liberal background. I do have some decision-making to do."

http://www.ngnews.ca/Regional/2007-04-15/article-318060/Liberal-supporte...

In the following Elizabeth May confounds her local Green candidate when the Liberal candidate claims Elizabeth May's endorsement.  May does not comment. (2011)

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2011/09/26/is-elizabeth-may-backing-bob-chiarelli/

When speculation about who might be prospective Liberal leadership candidates might be, "as one of her prominent environmentalist supporters has recently pointed out: “She will put people and progress before partisan politics, and we need more of that.”

http://www.counterweights.ca/2012/07/some-early-hasty-notes-on-the-liberal-party-of-canada-leadership-race/

In an analysis of where May's votes came from in her 2011 victory:  "Most of May's vote came at the expense of the Liberals, though, who saw their share of the vote drop to a puny six per cent from 39 per cent in 2008."

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=921b...

When speculation about who might be prospective Liberal leadership candidates might be, "as one of her prominent environmentalist supporters has recently pointed out: “She (Elizabeth May) will put people and progress before partisan politics, and we need more of that.”

http://www.counterweights.ca/2012/07/some-early-hasty-notes-on-the-liberal-party-of-canada-leadership-race/

And here the TO Star's Delacourt speculates on May's Liberal leadership interests, ""May, 56, has been open to Liberal-Green co-operation for several years now," wrote Delacourt."

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/why-elizabeth-may-run-federal-liberal-leadership-213512309.html

When Elizabeth May was asked in 2012 about the intent of inviting Liberals and NDP to the Green convention, May talked about Stephane Dion and the Liberasl 3 times and mentioned a former NDP member once.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/green-party-leader-elizabeth-may-talks-y-canada-142447810.html

And finally, a Green/Liberal blogger explains how the Green Party strategy is designed to benefit the Liberals rather than the NDP in the 2015 federal election.  "May does not like the NDP, so her instinct is going to be to cut a deal that favours the Liberals."  A rather lengthy blog explains this blogger's analysis here.

What's my point?  Elizabeth May has a history of alliance and coalition with the federal Liberals.  Let's be clear about that.  This is unlikely to change.

 

 

 

Stockholm

Thew Liberals and NDP are parties with many seats and long histories and representation in most provinces. They can afford the odd anomalously bad result...the Green party is already hanging by a thread and may soon have to file for bankruptcy protection since the per vote funding is drying up. They don't have the luxury of being wiped out in 4 byelections in four very different parts of the country. I predict May will run as a Liberal in 2015 and that the Green party itself will be left to die

 

Winston wrote:

I don't know, Stockholm...The Liberals got about 5% in Brandon-Souris in 2011, what does that say about their viability? The NDP got less than 5% in most of the ridings in the country through the 1990s - what does that say about their viability? THe NDP is likely to get less than 5% on Monday in Provencher...

Not really a great argument..

cco

Funny how many people are calling May a Liberal now when she has such a long history with the Mulroney Tories (even working for Lucien Bouchard back when the anglos considered him "respectable").

Centrist

cco wrote:
Funny how many people are calling May a Liberal now when she has such a long history with the Mulroney Tories (even working for Lucien Bouchard back when the anglos considered him "respectable").
 

Don`t underestimate the Greens. Remember the Victoria 2012 federal by-election, which Forum Research showed the NDP leading by 28% or so? And on by-election night, the Greens were leading all night long untill the advance polls were added at the end. I was sweating bullets and so were many others.

Again, never under-estimate your political enemy.

 

Aristotleded24

Stockholm wrote:
Its very likely that the Green Party will get less than 5% of the vote in each of the four byelections coming up on Monday. what will this say for their viability as a party? Are they really a party at all or just a one woman show?

They'll at least crack 10% in Brandon-Souris. There is a Green Party following in Brandon.

David Young

I'd be willing to bet that there are a lot of 'Green' voters who will think about voting Liberal in Brandon-Souris just to try to spoil Harper's parade by seeing a 'safe' Conservative seat lost to an opposition party, and the back-room grumbling that would inevitably start in Conservative Party circles if that should happen.

 

DLivings

Centrist wrote:

cco wrote:
Funny how many people are calling May a Liberal now when she has such a long history with the Mulroney Tories (even working for Lucien Bouchard back when the anglos considered him "respectable").
 

Don`t underestimate the Greens. Remember the Victoria 2012 federal by-election, which Forum Research showed the NDP leading by 28% or so? And on by-election night, the Greens were leading all night long untill the advance polls were added at the end. I was sweating bullets and so were many others.

Again, never under-estimate your political enemy.

That is too true!

Unionist

mark_alfred wrote:

Elizabeth May makes a statement on the group Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME).  link

First of all, your link is the extreme right-wing extreme pro-Netanyahu garbage rag, the "Jewish Tribune".

Secondly, where exactly did you see that Elizabeth May "makes a statement"? The quotes from her are based on a phone conversation. I trust the so-called "Jewish" Tribune to take accurate notes about as much as I trust Netanyahu to defend my interests.

So, Independent Jewish Voices contacted May to ask what the hell she had said. Her email response contained the following:

Quote:
Thanks for your note. I am in transit from Warsaw, and a bit jet-lagged, but I think the quote mis-cast what I said. I note they used brackets to suggest I was saying CPJME was "anti-Israel." But what I recall was saying something more nuanced -- that the boycott campaign creates the impression of being anti-Israel.

I look forward to the talk on the 5th to be able to put forward the Green Party stance, without someone else editing my words.

Elizabeth

Be careful with shady sources, please. Elizabeth May's policies are bad enough without being distorted by crooks for their ultra-Zionist ends.

 

janfromthebruce

The green lib blogger has already become a Liberal member, as mentioned above to his blog. And considering the obvious shift in positioning of the liberals under Trudeau to the right it actually is a perfect fit for May. They are becoming the old progressive conservative party in their positioning and May should be feel at home.

addictedtomyipod

The Greens are still defined as a one issue party and this translates into more votes as anyone can believe what they want about this party.  They attract voters from ALL parties as who doesn't care about the environment besides far right tea party types?  They also are the new default party where people who hate all politicians can vote there.  

Elizabeth May has pretty much carried this party for quite a few years now and has not been able to bring up the national numbers. She basically says what she likes, and is a master at knowing what her audience wants to hear, regardless of party policy.  This has brought up some recent criticisms from other members. She also will embrace anyone that she thinks will bring in votes, like George Laroque and we all know how that turned out. She campaigned really hard in the recent provincial election in BC with a candidate that is pro-life.  Recently elected Green MLA Weaver, who won the long time Liberal riding Oak Bay Gordon Head, voted in favour of the Liberal budget. He also supported Gordon Campbell's Liberal's in the past.  In my experience with this party, they are no different than any other party.  They do not co-operate more, they do not run clean campaigns and are capable of playing politics just like everyone else.  There is only one social democratic party, and that is the NDP and it is a shame that some do gravitate towards the Greens as their tax policies are on par with Conservative ones.  Lizzie likes to say that the Greens believe in tax what you burn and not what you earn, or tax things you don't like and not things you do, like income. They also believe that unions have outlived their usefullness.

It is unfortunate that there has to be another opposition to Harper Cons, as this just waters down the wine.  Sure they have a right to exist, but it just doesn't help. 

quizzical

addictedtomyipod wrote:
She campaigned really hard in the recent provincial election in BC with a candidate that is pro-life.  Recently elected Green MLA Weaver, who won the long time Liberal riding Oak Bay Gordon Head, voted in favour of the Liberal budget. He also supported Gordon Campbell's Liberal's in the past.....it just doesn't help

what? who was it she campaigned with? how do you know the candidate was anti-abortion. (btw i take exception to your use of "pro-prolife", its bs the anti-abortionists aren't "pro-life".)

i'm really kinda upset was thinking i might vote green next election.

 

maybe you're not looking at who they actually ARE helping......

DLivings

triple post

DLivings

double post

DLivings

quizzical wrote:

addictedtomyipod wrote:
She campaigned really hard in the recent provincial election in BC with a candidate that is pro-life.  Recently elected Green MLA Weaver, who won the long time Liberal riding Oak Bay Gordon Head, voted in favour of the Liberal budget. He also supported Gordon Campbell's Liberal's in the past.....it just doesn't help

what? who was it she campaigned with? how do you know the candidate was anti-abortion. (btw i take exception to your use of "pro-prolife", its bs the anti-abortionists aren't "pro-life".)

i'm really kinda upset was thinking i might vote green next election.

maybe you're not looking at who they actually ARE helping......

Adam Olsen, Green Party candidate for Saanich and the Islands in 2013, responded to a question asked by a student at an election forum at Gulf Island Secondary School during the BC election this year.  He indicated that he is against abortions and takes a pro-life stance.  Elizabeth May campaigned for him.  This constituency is included in Elizabeth's federal riding.  

I've also attended public functions (school grad, PRIDE parade) where Elizabeth May is over-the-top effusive in her praise for the local community... "there is no other place like this", "this place has the best spirit".  I'm left wondering what she says to the communities down the road.

Unionist

DLivings wrote:

Adam Olsen, Green Party candidate for Saanich and the Islands in 2013, responded to a question asked by a student at an election forum at Gulf Island Secondary School during the BC election this year.  He indicated that he is against abortions and takes a pro-life stance.

Do you recall what he actually said? Just wondering. He seems to have been challenged on it afterward, because he had to deal with the issue [url=http://adamolsengreenpartybc-adamolsen.nationbuilder.com/women_have_the_....

Elizabeth May has also taken a kind of ambiguous stand - saying she doesn't like abortions much, but supports a woman's right to choose. We had quite a bit of debate about that here a few years ago. Don't know what position she promotes these days.

 

DLivings

Thanks for that, Unionist.  

I was not aware that Mr. Olsen had recanted his statement from the election forum.  Reading between the lines, it appears he was "re-educated." What I remember is that Mr. Olsen's response regarding "a woman's right to choose" was the buzz locally folllowing the forum.  As his riding was a close 3-way race, his gaffe may have been a factor that affected the outcome.

Pages