Progress Canada taking a shot at Elizabeth May questioning her position on abortion, sending this graphic out to ALL their supporters
right on schedule!
And if the greens strengthen in the polls, expect the ICM to turn the heat up on May a few notches.
But this was a left wing group (I presume).
Isn't May's background with Mulroney and the Conservatives?
She first became known in the Canadian media in the mid-1970s through her leadership as a volunteer in the grassroots movement against proposed aerial insecticide spraying on forests near her home on Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia. The effort prevented aerial insecticide spraying from ever occurring in Nova Scotia. Years later, she and a local group of residents went to court to prevent herbicide spraying. Winning a temporary injunction in 1982 held off the spray programme, but after two years, the case was eventually lost. In the course of the litigation, her family sacrificed their home and seventy acres of land in an adverse court ruling to Scott Paper. However, by the time the judge ruled the chemicals were safe, 2,4,5-T's export from the U.S. had been banned.[13] The forests of Nova Scotia were spared from being the last areas in Canada to be sprayed with Agent Orange.
According to The Globe and Mail May, similar to other politicians has had interests in other parties,
She once took out a membership in the NDP and admits to joining the Liberal Party briefly to support a friend in a nomination meeting.
— Jane Taber, The Globe and Mail[14]
Her volunteer work also included successful campaigns to prevent approval of uranium mining in Nova Scotia, and extensive work on energy policy issues, primarily opposing nuclear energy.[13]
She has held the position of Associate General Counsel for the Public Interest Advocacy Centre,[15] representing consumer, poverty and environment groups from 1985–86. She has worked extensively with indigenous peoples internationally, particularly in the Amazon, as well as with Canadian First Nations. She was the first volunteer Executive Director of Cultural Survival Canada from 1989–1992 and worked for the Algonquin of Barriere Lake from 1991–1992.[13]
In 1986, May became Senior Policy Advisor to then federal Environment Minister, Thomas McMillan of the Progressive Conservatives.[13] She was instrumental in the creation of several national parks, including South Moresby. She was involved in negotiating the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, new legislation and pollution control measures. In 1988, she resigned on principle when the Minister granted permits for the Rafferty-Alameda Dams in Saskatchewan because of no environmental assessment. The permits were later quashed by a Federal Court decision that the permits were granted illegally.[16]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_May#Political_beginnings
I’ve done several searches and nothing comes up for progressive Canada
I’ve done several searches and nothing comes up for progressive Canada
Their twitter account
And the Elizabeth May bashing continues, this time from left leaning publication "The Tyee" - Elizabeth May’s Greens Need to Fix Their Indigenous ‘Vision’
Party’s positions are thin, unrealistic and riddled with embarrassing errors.
https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2019/05/14/Greens-Need-To-Fix-Indigenous-Vision/
Ok thanks for that Mighty Middle
Tweedledee vs tweedledumb. May the best Israeli apartheid supporters win. Like shit on a blanket, settler state politicians stick together along with their cheerleaders it seems. A plague on all their houses. Shame on any 'progressive' who votes for a candidate that opposes BDS and supports the genocidal criminal Zionist regime.
And the Elizabeth May bashing continues, this time from left leaning publication "The Tyee" - Elizabeth May’s Greens Need to Fix Their Indigenous ‘Vision’
Party’s positions are thin, unrealistic and riddled with embarrassing errors.
https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2019/05/14/Greens-Need-To-Fix-Indigenous-Vision/
1. Robert Jago is a Montreal based freelancer, he is not the Tyee
2. The article bends over backwards to try to be fair to the Greens. Check Jago’s twitter feed for more. May responded with a defensive comment that she was raked over the coals for. She has since deleted.
3. Jago is an Indigenous writer making fair comment on the train wreck that is Green Indigenous policy. The platform IS full of errors. Greens can do better. They should try to do better.
4. Not all critique is dishonest shilling for a preferred party. Jago is not a partisan of any party.
As long as the NDP has a credible Green New Deal plan I am convinced they can take the Green vote.
Meanwhile, in the one province where the Greens have come closest to power, there are major questions being raised about top down control of the Green party nomination process.
There has been some complaints within the Green Party about the selection process for the District 9 election, which was delayed due to the death of the Green Party candidate. The party had reduced the number of candidates who had applied to run down from five to two, only to then have one of those two eliminated by Elections PEI on a ruling that this was a continuation of the provincial election, not a by election, and PEI law does not allow a candidate to run in more than one riding. Some members complained the selection process was too secretive and unaccountable to the membership.
As a result of this John Andrews won the nomination on a vote of 128 to 33 for "no candidate". Despite being asked by the newspaper below, the party would not reveal who was on the committee that reduced the number of candidates from five to two.
Ruben said the party had a process to identify two qualified candidates and now the party is down to one, John Andrew.
Bevan-Baker’s apology followed a controversy surrounding the party’s decision to restrict its number of nominees in Charlottetown-Hillsborough Park.
Five individuals had initially applied to be the party’s nominee for the deferred election in the district. A party committee narrowed this down to two nominees who could face a vote by the membership. One was later deemed ineligible by Elections P.E.I.
Several party members had complained publicly about the process, with some accusing the party’s provincial council of being overly secretive and unaccountable.
In the end, most members voted for the sole remaining nominee, retired medical physicist John Andrew, by a margin of 128 to 33. The 33 votes were for a “no candidate” option, a protest vote allowed in Green nominations, through which members can express a lack of confidence with all of the potential nominees. ...
When asked by The Guardian, Green party officials did not identify the names of the individuals who sat on the party’s candidate selection committee. Party president Martin Ruben did say the committee included a member of the Underhay family, a member of provincial council, a member of the party’s caucus and one or more residents of Charlottetown-Hillsborough Park.
https://www.theguardian.pe.ca/news/local/pei-green-leader-offers-apology...
Erin Weir tweetsI cannot support today’s federal #NDP “climate emergency” motion because it fails to address carbon pricing or propose any other mechanism to reduce emissions.
https://www.erinweir.com/climate_emergency[/quote]
Good on Weir for calling out the hypocrisy of supporting LNG from BC while blocking oil pipelines from Alberta.
Erin Weir tweetsI cannot support today’s federal #NDP “climate emergency” motion because it fails to address carbon pricing or propose any other mechanism to reduce emissions.
Good on Weir for calling out the hypocrisy of supporting LNG from BC while blocking oil pipelines from Alberta.
[/quote]
Do you also agree with his opposition to carbon taxes?
I can go either way on carbon pricing, depending on how it's rolled out and how the funds are used. The biggest issue with carbon pricing is that it can be very easily framed as taking money away from people. For existence, look at BC. They have a carbon tax becasue apparently it's needed to save the environment. Yet the BC government is giving a carbon tax rebate for the processing of LNG, which is supposedly one of the many fossil fuels that's going to destroy life on this planet. Do you think people can't see through that? My advice to policy-makers: skip past carbon pricing, and bring in a Green New Deal. A Green New Deal puts everybody to work, and it's almost impossible to argue against that.
How can the emission of carbon dioxide be reduced if it continues to be cheap to do so? Isn’t some kind of fee on carbon required to make it not affordable to do so? Wouldn’t any Green New Deal require making the emission of carbon dioxide not affordable?
How can the emission of carbon dioxide be reduced if it continues to be cheap to do so? Isn’t some kind of fee on carbon required to make it not affordable to do so? Wouldn’t any Green New Deal require making the emission of carbon dioxide not affordable?
We didn't reduce emissions of acid rain causing pollution or ozone-destroying gases by implementing an acid rain or CFC tax. We simply said that these were harmful and we are going to stop doing them. It's far to easy for a government to put in a carbon tax and pat themselves on the back without doing anything else.
How can the emission of carbon dioxide be reduced if it continues to be cheap to do so? Isn’t some kind of fee on carbon required to make it not affordable to do so? Wouldn’t any Green New Deal require making the emission of carbon dioxide not affordable?We didn't reduce emissions of acid rain causing pollution or ozone-destroying gases by implementing an acid rain or CFC tax. We simply said that these were harmful and we are going to stop doing them. It's far to easy for a government to put in a carbon tax and pat themselves on the back without doing anything else.
Are we about to outlaw the emissions of carbon dioxide like we outlawed the omissions of ozone destroying gases? What if it’s currently politically impossible to outlaw the emissions of carbon dioxide?
We don't need to outlaw it. There are technologies available now that could dramatically decrease our usage.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/green-energy-economy-1.5143757
The report declares that while Canadians obsess about pipelines and shrinking employment in coal, oil and gas, they and their leaders have been ignoring a sector that is outgrowing the rest of the economy, attracting billions of dollars in investment and creating more jobs than either the fossil fuel or mining sectors....
That will work itself out over time, but the concern of Smith and her group, and the reason for assembling today's report, is the blinkered view of many Canadians that the energy industry and the economy are somehow in conflict with green principles....
If current trends continue, the Navius research says that the effect of the green energy sector will become harder to miss in the economy. Studying the period from 2010 to 2017, not only did the sector outgrow the entire economy by more than one full percentage point, but jobs in that component of the economy increased by 2.2 per cent a year, compared to an annual increase of 1.4 per cent in jobs overall.
The oil industry isn't going to stop overnight but it is time for rapid transition not expansion.
We don't need to outlaw it. There are technologies available now that could dramatically decrease our usage.
But will people switch to green technologies in sufficient quantities if the green technologies are more expensive than dirty carbon dioxide emitting technologies? And why should some people have to spend more on expensive clean green technologies while others save by using cheap dirty carbon dioxide emitting technologies? Paradoxically the price of dirty carbon technologies could be made cheaper by people switching to green technologies as reduced demand reduces price. I think very many people use price as their guide in determining whether they use green technologies.
We don't need to outlaw it. There are technologies available now that could dramatically decrease our usage.
But will people switch to green technologies in sufficient quantities if the green technologies are more expensive than dirty carbon dioxide emitting technologies? And why should some people have to spend more on expensive clean green technologies while others save by using cheap dirty carbon dioxide emitting technologies? Ironically the price of dirty carbon technologies could be made cheaper and more attractive by people switching to green technologies as lower demand decreases price. I think very many people use price as their guide in determining whether they use green technologies.
Laws forced the switch to digital TV and to florescent lights lowering their price.Widespread use will lessen the expense. The health costs are rarely caculated nor the cost of cleaning the city of the filth generated by exhaust. Green technology costs are generally upfront with the payback period quite long but eventually it becomes virtually free which is a huge cost savings over time. For homes government could finance the loan portion applicable to green tech. People are quickly thrilled by getting money from their electrical company instead of paying it out.
The oil industry isn't going anywhere but it can't be a growth industry and must shrink to save the planet. That means forcing a change to green technology even if it is more expensive because it is even more expensive to deal with the growing climate emergency. I am 100% behind supporting Alberta's transition but transition it must.
I am convinced EE will never be built because protesters would have the support of local and provincial government. The SQ would not be encouraged to push. I don't know BC people well enough to know how far they will go but once it passes all court hurdles we will know. That will be the moment of truth.
What's wrong with Jagmeet Singh's NDP?
The latest 338Canada analysis shows the party struggling in Quebec and B.C. and far off its 2015 results
by Philippe J. Fournier
May 27, 2019
https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/whats-wrong-with-jagmeet-singhs-ndp/
What's wrong with Jagmeet Singh's NDP?
The latest 338Canada analysis shows the party struggling in Quebec and B.C. and far off its 2015 results
by Philippe J. Fournier
May 27, 2019
https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/whats-wrong-with-jagmeet-singhs-ndp/
Be careful what you wish for, Debater.
Like the Liberals, the NDP now has to defend its environmental flank from Elizabeth May’s Green Party, but whether the Greens are ready for prime time is still up in the air. With better poll numbers comes more scrutiny. It’ll be interesting to track these numbers all the way to Oct. 21.
The same article has the above note. Currently the Liberals have 177 seats. A majority requires 170 seats. They may gain some seats in Quebec. However, since they have all 32 Atlantic seats, the best they can do there is the status quo, and nearly every pollster says that is highly unlikely. The Liberals are unlikely to hold most of their seven seats in Manitoba, highly likely their three remaining seats in Alberta, and also unlikely to pull the third part of their western trifecta by winning anywhere near the 17 seats they got in BC.
As the article above notes, growth of the Greens will be at the cost of the Liberals as well as the NDP, thereby increasing the chances of the Cons winning the most seats. It is also highly likely, that Green growth will cost these three parties in total more seats than any gains from that Green growth, because the Greens are starting from such a low base in most ridings. It might even put the Cons in position to win a majority.
No doubt you will put out the traditional Liberal lament of you have to vote Liberal to stop the Cons. No I don't.
The Liberals have failed to live up to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) reached in Rio de Janiero that came into effect under the Chretien government in 1994 to "stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system"; (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Cli...);
failed to live up to the 1997 Kyoto Accords under the Chretien and Martin governments to reduce emissions by 6% compared to 1990 levels of 461 Mts, but instead raised them from 671 Mt in 1997 to 747 Mt - the last full year of the Martin government - (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_and_the_Kyoto_Protocol);
Trudeau adopted Harper's greenhouse emissions targets when Trudeau gained power after decrying the terrible job Harper had done on environmental issues (https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/02/14/opinion/how-trudeaus-climate...);
continued $3.3 billion in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry instead of shifting this subsidy to renewable energy (https://environmentaldefence.ca/report/the-elephant-in-the-room-canadas-...);
will almost certainly fail to meet the greenhouse gas emission (Harper's) targets that Trudeau said they were "absolutely committed" to, according to the auditor general (https://www.cpacanada.ca/en/news/canada/2018-09-18-canada-failing-to-red...);
bought the Trans Mountain pipeline for $4.5 billion and are now estimated to have to spend at least $9.3 billion on building it for a total cost of $13.8 billion to taxpayers to triple the bitumen flow and greenhouse gas emissions;(https://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/cost-to-twin-trans...).
in April 2019 Canada's Environmental Commission, Julie Gelfand, in her final report said the Trudeau government is not on track to reach its 2030 fossil fuel emissions reduction targets despite the fact that Canada is warming twice as fast as the rest of the world. Her final conclusions as the country's environmental watchdog say it is Canada's slow action to deal with the warming planet that is most "disturbing" (https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/02/14/opinion/how-trudeaus-climate...);
The Liberals have failed to deal with climate change for 25 years. I don't want more of the same in the next Conservative or Liberal government. So I won't be voting for either of them.
Good for you, Jerry. Neither will I. I'll be voting Green -- which I also did in 2015.
But remember that the Liberals are better than the Conservatives, so be prepared for things to get worse under Scheer & the Cons. Scheer will be a combination of Ford & Trump.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-thursday-edition-1.51...
Finally someone is pointing out that the Green party's environmental plan is ridiculous, expanding refining capacity in Canada so we can use the dirtiest oil in the world for the next 30 years isn't an environmental plan. But why aren't the NDP the ones criticizing this? Why does it take a provincial Green Party leader?
Elizabeth May Talks Over NDP MP Nathan Cullen During Debate On Foreign Oil
Elizabeth May Talks Over NDP MP Nathan Cullen During Debate On Foreign Oil
If Nathan had done that to her the outcry from the media would be relentless. What a rude and obnoxious woman.
What a rude and obnoxious woman.
That may be, but she's also now leading Jagmeet Singh as people's preferred choice for PM 19% to 12%, and is ahead of him in every region of the country. So, there's that.
https://abacusdata.ca/liberals-and-conservatives-neck-and-neck-as-greens...
What a rude and obnoxious woman.
That may be, but she's also now leading Jagmeet Singh as people's preferred choice for PM 19% to 12%, and is ahead of him in every region of the country. So, there's that.
https://abacusdata.ca/liberals-and-conservatives-neck-and-neck-as-greens...
If I was a Green supporter I would be really pissed that she was offering the leadership of my party to any one, let alone members of another party. But the federal Greens have always been the EMay show not a party.
- some articles from the past
How Elizabeth May taught conservatives never to trust green activists
Two recent books call into question the seriousness that anyone should accord to the Green party and its leader, Elizabeth May
-----------------
Could the queen of green be mean?
Supporters call Elizabeth May driven, generous and inspirational. But even some in her own party call her duplicitous, a bully and a sellout. Meet Canada’s wackiest politician.
https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/could-the-queen-of-green-be-mean/
- and a recent one
Elizabeth May responds to backlash after riding in Dodge Viper during the 121st Island Farms Victoria Day Parade
Posted By: Alexa Huffmanon: May 21, 2019In: News, Top Stories
Federal Green Party Leader Elizabeth May rode in 1994 Dodge Viper during the 121st Island Farms Victoria Day Parade.
Federal Green Party leader Elizabeth May has explained why she rode in a 1994 Dodge Viper during the 121st Island Farms Victoria Day Parade Monday after the move sparked criticism online.
The explanation was posted on Twitter after Norman Spector, a columnist who was chief of staff to former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and deputy minister under former B.C. premier Bill Bennett, tweeted out a picture of May in the car. In the tweet, Spector said that the ride didn’t appear to be an electric vehicle.
“Hey, @ElizabethMay, points for riding in the rain with the top down — but that doesn’t look like an EV to me! #bcpoli #cdnpoli,”, Spector wrote. Others on Twitter and Facebook also called out May after seeing the photo or watching her in the parade.
Hey, @ElizabethMay, points for riding in the rain with the top down -- but that doesn't look like an EV to me! #bcpoli #cdnpoli
In response, May said in a quote tweet that the car belonged to a volunteer.
“It was a rainy ride for sure, and not a Green vehicle. Local #yyj volunteer Pat Peron owns this 1994 Viper. I rode where parade organizers asked me to. :)” May, who is also the MP for Saanich-Gulf Islands, wrote.
The Green Party’s climate plan, called “Mission: Possible” calls for all new cars to be electric by 2030 and replacing all internal combustion engine vehicles with electric vehicles by 2040. In B.C., the NDP government has said all new light-duty cars and trucks will be zero-emission by 2040
It’s time for May to start practicing what she preaches. Or maybe she’s just full of shit?
If some serious green candidates get elected, I can see her leadership getting challenged and easily overthrown.
I’m going to speculate this October is her last federal election as leader.
I’m going to speculate this October is her last federal election as leader.
I saw on one of the political shows a reporter confirming that Elizabeth May has said this will be her last campaign as leader (though I can't find a link, I just saw it on TV) - that is why she offered the leadership to both JWR and Philpott, as she was already preparing to step down. However she said no matter what happens, she wants to remain an MP. through 2023.
Ya I heard something like that to (probably babble) So it’s probably a safe bet. I can see if after the October election, the greens only get one seat, May’s, then she may decide to stay on.
But openly offering the leadership to another politician? That’s bizarre. She sounds like a drunk.
NDP climate policy is serious but not radical
NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh has had several different climate-change policies, but none of them were in the climate platform he released last week.
Only last month, he was telling the country the NDP was moving in a bold new direction on environmental issues, opposing all new oil-and-gas infrastructure. That meant no new pipelines or major projects, and no fracking, either.
It was controversial, but bold. It quickly seemed a bit less bold when Mr. Singh ducked and weaved about whether he is now against the big B.C. liquid natural gas project that he supported only months ago – a project backed by B.C. Premier John Horgan’s provincial NDP.
And when it came to putting the federal NDP’s environmental policies in black-and-white, in a 22-page document that the party called “a new deal for climate action and good jobs,” that more radical stuff – opposing all new oil-and-gas infrastructure – wasn’t there.
So, which is it?
... By itself, the NDP policy paper is a serious effort for a social-democratic party trying to beef up its green credentials. But it is not a radical new approach.
David McLaughlin, climate-change director with the International Institute for Sustainable Development, said efforts to reduce emissions with home refit programs would be beneficial. For the most part, the NDP takes approaches similar to the Liberal government, but takes them a bit farther, he said. The NDP proposes to create a $3-billion “climate bank,” but it’s hard to say how that would be very different from the Canada Infrastructure Bank created by the governing Liberals.
So what happened to Mr. Singh’s radical turn to no new oil-and-gas infrastructure? The NDP’s explanation is essentially that that is Mr. Singh’s vision of the future.
But it begs the question of how he intends to get there. Energy is a substantial part of Canada’s economy, so how would the NDP handle such a major transition? And when?
To be fair, every political party in Canada has wide gaps in its environmental policies. The problem with Mr. Singh’s is that he has shifted so much it’s hard to glean his real direction.
At first, he tried to balance green rhetoric with unclear phrases about pipelines. Next, he moved to clearly oppose the Trans-Mountain pipeline expansion, angering then-premier Rachel Notley’s Alberta NDP. In January, while he was running in a by-election in Burnaby, B.C., Mr. Singh said he supported the B.C. LNG project; in May, after the NDP lost the Nanaimo-Ladysmith election to the Green Party, he announced the no-new-infrastructure shift. Now, it’s gone again. Or, sort of.
Clearly the NDP wants to compete with more radical rhetoric, probably because of political math. The Green Party is catching up in opinion polls. With lower levels of support, the NDP might not be competing for the votes of union workers, but for green-conscious urban voters in B.C., downtown Toronto and central Montreal. Mr. Singh unveiled his climate platform on Friday in the NDP-held Montreal riding of Laurier-Ste-Marie – where the Liberals are courting prominent environmentalist Steven Guilbeault to run.
Mr. Singh is making it sound like he has taken a radical green turn, but it wasn’t there in black and white. It’s missing. He has had trouble picking one climate policy. He wants to tell the country he has a bold environmental direction, but he hasn’t provided a sense of how he’d get the Canadian economy there. That’s the part that counts.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-ndp-climate-policy-is-s...
Looks like NDP support has collapsed in the new Vancouver Granville poll -- the NDP is now in a tight race with Greens for 4th/5th place.
Wilson-Raybould -- 32%
Liberals -- 29%
Conservatives -- 20%
Greens - 10%
NDP - 8%
https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/jody-wilson-raybould-has-the-lead-over-trudeaus-liberals/
Looks like NDP support has collapsed in the new Vancouver Granville poll -- the NDP is now in a tight race with Greens for 4th/5th place.
Wilson-Raybould -- 32%
Liberals -- 29%
Conservatives -- 20%
Greens - 10%
NDP - 8%
https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/jody-wilson-raybould-has-the-lead-over-trudeaus-liberals/
Good to see JWR with such strong support. That is not etched in stone and will change by election time.
Looks like NDP support has collapsed in the new Vancouver Granville poll -- the NDP is now in a tight race with Greens for 4th/5th place.
Wilson-Raybould -- 32%
Liberals -- 29%
Conservatives -- 20%
Greens - 10%
NDP - 8%
https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/jody-wilson-raybould-has-the-lead-over-trudeaus-liberals/
Good to see JWR with such strong support. That is not etched in stone and will change by election time.
That poll is only of importance if Wilson-Raybould stands for re-election as an independent, which is something MPs who've been kicked out of their party's caucuses almost never do. She is likely holding that level of support because a lot of people admire her for standing up to Justin. Either the Liberals or the Cons could easily overcome that lead with a halfway decent candidate. If she gets out, the support level she takes there would be totally up for grabs. And it's not really valid to take her support level as a comment on the NDP not trying to win her over, because she's clearly to far to the right to ever even consider joining the NDP OR the Greens. She's a blue Liberal at best, and if she was going to cross the floor to anybody it would be the Cons.
BTW The only reason the NDP finished second in Granville last time(they'd finished third there in 2011, the first time the riding was contested in a general election)was that the Con vote collapsed. As drawn, that riding should be either a leaning-Con seat or a Lib-Con marginal.
But your response there is totally unsurprising-even though you say you don't support the Liberals now, it's never surprising to see you sneer at the NDP-whichever party you DO support at any given time, you are always implacably hostile to the Dippers. Not really sure why holding the NDP down seems to matter more to you than anything else.
Are you addressing me, Ken? Where did I "sneer" at the NDP? I was responding to the poll that Josh posted. Perhaps you didn't read the links? Are you upset because I used the word "collapsed" for the NDP in Vancouver Granville? That's exactly how polling analyst Philippe Fournier described it:
This result shows that both the Liberal and Wilson-Raybould’s brands are benefiting from the NDP’s near complete collapse
https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/jody-wilson-raybould-has-the-lead-over-trudeaus-liberals/
I’ve done several searches and nothing comes up for progressive Canada
Progress Canada...not "Progressive Canada".
Thanks Ken Burch. Still nothing. Not that important anyways.
From another thread courtesy of R.E. Wood
An interesting quote from this article:
For the first time ever, the federal Green Party has surpassed the New Democratic Party in decided support in this region. Support for the Greens has more than doubled over the past three months, reaching 14% (up from 5% in May 2018 and 6% in February). NDP support stands at 9% (down from 15% and 11%).
“The federal NDP is struggling to maintain its position as the third party of choice in Atlantic Canada, and findings suggest they could be replaced by the Greens as the main alternative to the Liberals or Conservatives,”
I am not sure what you thought I meant. The problem is that myself and my neighbors are all wondering who to vote for in the next election. The NDP and Greens are both competitive on VI and if they split the vote we will have the majority of the voters who want action on the climate saddled with climate change denying Conservatives. In my riding we have Gord Johns who is a good hardworking NDP MP who is an environmentalist more than a socialist. Now if the NDP continues to support the BC NDP's right to destroy the planet I might consider voting Green but it will almost certainly guarantee that the Conservatives will win.
I think that our only hope is in the streets not in the voting booth. This is from my youth when YIPPIES helped end the Vietnam war and the civil rights movement made major progress. Elders like myself and other old folks on this board need to support the children who are taking to the streets as our first priority.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5M_Ttstbgs
Agreed.
Campaign Research
Deadlock continues as the Green Party closes in on the NDP
June 9, 2019
Conservatives 35%
Liberals 32%
NDP 14%
Greens 12%
