NB Green Leader David Coon to provide written apology to NDP candidates
NDP denies reports of New Brunswick defections
Elizabeth May just countered on CTV that some of the NDP dissendents have been "bullied" (her word) from NDP headquarters to change their story.
Francis Duguay, who ran for the NDP in Tracadie-Sheila in the New Brunswick election a year ago, told Radio-Canada on Thursday that he was stunned when he learned from a journalist that his name was on a declaration of support for the Green Party.
Francis Duguay ran for the NDP in Tracadie-Sheila in the September 2018 provincial election. (Facebook/Francis Duguay)
"I'm shocked because it was done without my knowledge," Duguay said in French.
He said New Democrat Joyce Richardson, a former provincial candidate for the party herself, contacted him on Monday night — mere hours before the defections were announced — to float the idea of merging the two left-leaning parties in the province.
Contacted by CBC News, Joyce Richardson said she was clear in her conversations with NDP members that she was talking about joining the Greens, not merging the parties.
"It was very clear because we weren't merging," she said. "It wouldn't have told them something that wasn't it. My understanding is that they misunderstood me. So I'll leave it at that."
On Tuesday morning, Jonathan Richardson, the federal NDP's executive member for Atlantic Canada and Joyce Richardson's son, announced that he and 14 former NDP candidates would be supporting the Green Party provincially and federally.
Elizabeth May just countered on CTV that some of the NDP dissendents have been "bullied" (her word) from NDP headquarters to change their story.
HaHaHa If the NDP could bully their candidates they would be Liberals or Conservatives not the NDP
.
1984 election results
Cons - 211 seats
Liberals - 40 seats
NDP - 30 seats
E May has made a career of being disingenuous
How about our very own Debater who was all over this story like a dirty shirt, eh!
And what about the NDP-hating CBC - why didn't they check their facts before they went to print?
The Green Party is Canada’s true populist menace
On May 6, the Green Party of Canada elected its second member of Parliament in the party’s 35 years of existence. As with every meager success this party achieves, Paul Manly’s narrow victory is a nauseating development in the degeneration of Canadian democracy, the triumph of a dark and ignorant flavor of populist politics enabled by a breathtakingly irresponsible media bias.
Canadian newspapers over the past 15 years have been replete with endless giddy predictions that the Greens may soon, in the words of the National Post, “really, finally, truly” enter the political mainstream. Though Canada possesses more than a dozen minor parties desperate for attention, at some point the Canadian media seems to have arbitrarily decided it’s the plucky Greens the nation must collectively back, cheering their every toddle with the excitement of an anxious stage parent.
The oblivious naivete powering this phenomenon is clear enough: a mix of writerly class conventional wisdom that “the environment” deserves a more prominent place in national politics, coupled with deference at the exceptional self-promotional skills of the Greens’ leader-for-life Elizabeth May. In her 13 years as party boss, May has put tremendous effort into building a personal brand as Canada’s kindest, noblest, wisest, most ethical and hardest-working politician — a mythology of cartoonish vanity Canadian journalists nevertheless obediently regurgitate.
Virtually all reporting on the Greens in the May era has consisted of repeating the same credulous cliches in slightly different order. Every federal election (and even most by-elections) earns stories saying things like May’s party is eyeing a breakthrough and “could make history.” Voters are said to be giving the Greens a serious second look this time, and the other parties are instructed to worry. Some hallucinate scenarios in which May winds up “kingmaker” of the next parliament. Everyone agrees she must be included in the prime ministerial debates. Such coverage is supplemented with soft-focus profiles of some aspect of May’s apparently fascinating personal life — her divorce, her daughter, her faith, her engagement, her “low carbon” second wedding, and so on.
In return for this unceasing torrent of propaganda, May has delivered little. In her first decade as party boss, she presided over the election of precisely one member of parliament (herself) and saw the Greens’ share of the national popular vote dwindle to 3.5 percent — an even lower figure than was achieved by her forgotten predecessor in 2004.
That May and her party have remained so stubbornly unpersuasive to voters despite a tremendous media slant in her favor says something about just how repulsive she has made Canada’s Greens. Far from broadening her fringe party’s appeal, her leadership has simply made it a more efficient alliance of conspiracy theorists, faith healers and obsessive anti-Israel cranks — with the latter constantly on the brink of an outright takeover.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/10/green-party-is-canadas-true-populist-menace/
I’m truly stunned. What a turn of events.
^^
I don't like the Greens, but the language in that column leads me to think the guy might not be the most dispassionate commentator...
On May 6, the Green Party of Canada elected its second member of Parliament in the party’s 35 years of existence. As with every meager success this party achieves, Paul Manly’s narrow victory is a nauseating development in the degeneration of Canadian democracy, the triumph of a dark and ignorant flavor of populist politics enabled by a breathtakingly irresponsible media bias.
"Nauesating", "degeneration" etc. And then this...
Virtually all reporting on the Greens in the May era has consisted of repeating the same credulous cliches in slightly different order. Every federal election (and even most by-elections) earns stories saying things like May’s party is eyeing a breakthrough and “could make history.” Voters are said to be giving the Greens a serious second look this time, and the other parties are instructed to worry. Some hallucinate scenarios in which May winds up “kingmaker” of the next parliament.
Under the Westminister system, May could very well end up as a kingmaker, should the seat tally be particularly close in a hung Commons. I suppose the media might hype that possibility up somewhat to create excitement, but I wouldn't call it an hallucination.
And the usual equation of criticism of Israel with anti-semitism also calls into question the writer's credibility. Granted, the Greens' own history of running cranks doesn't help their case much, either. (Remember Shavhuk?)
^ According to stuff I just read on-line, McCullough also writes for National Review and used to work of Sun News, so...
How about our very own Debater who was all over this story like a dirty shirt, eh!
Enough with the personal attacks.
I commented on the story like everyone else here. And I wasn't the one who posted the original story thread -- I just added new comments to it.
Who do you think you are fooling Debater?
David Akin:
.@ElizabethMay ain’t taking no guff from @theJagmeetSingh
Statement from the Green Party:
Nice to see you supporting the dirty tricks of the May Greens but par for the course.
That May and her party have remained so stubbornly unpersuasive to voters despite a tremendous media slant in her favor says something about just how repulsive she has made Canada’s Greens.
It says something about how little people pay attention to or care about political pundits.
So what really happened is that this Richardson tried to get his mother in as leader provincially and when that didn’t wash he had a temper tantrum made derogatory comments about Singh and joined the Greens Good riddance to him and his followers
https://globalnews.ca/news/5856886/ndp-green-party-new-brunswick-exit/
So he's furious that the Parti Bernier isn't at 55% in the polls.^ According to stuff I just read on-line, McCullough also writes for National Review and used to work of Sun News, so...
^ According to stuff I just read on-line, McCullough also writes for National Review and used to work of Sun News, so...
J.J. McCullough is an alt-right hipster doofus.
The battle between the Greens & the NDP seems to be even more nasty than the one between the Liberals & the NDP.
This is not a surprise for anyone who has paid any attention to E May.
her whole political carrier has been typified by attempting to undermine the NDP which she wishes to supplant.
she has been less critical of the Cons and positively reverential to the Liberals by comparison.
Bigoted or not, the dust-up between the NDP and the Greens is a mere symptom of a much larger problem facing leftist voters in this country
Sep 5, 2019
by Andray Domise
https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/we-have-no-friends-in-politics/
Dismal prospects indeed. A mire of mediocrity at a time in history when the stakes couldn't be higher.
NDP can successfully fight back
http://rabble.ca/news/2019/09/ndp-can-successfully-fight-back-after-new-brunswick-defections
Elizabeth May Not the person Canadian media would have you believe she is
Such low level behaviour but typical of the Greens under May's leadership
Greens didn't fact-check claims of NDP exodus in New Brunswick
By Emma McIntosh in News, Politics | September 5th 2019
#44 of 44 articles from the Special Report:Election Integrity Reporting Project
Then, later Thursday morning, Singh put the accusation on the record, condemning the Green Party for spreading “misinformation.” That set off a series of slings and arrows, each party contesting the other’s version of events.
Morency said one individual who had since said they were not actually defecting — he wouldn’t provide a name or give any other details — had already been in talks with the federal Green Party within the past few weeks about running for them in the federal election.
“I want to extend my sympathy to the individuals caught in the middle,” Morency said. “It's a well-played game by the federal NDP.”
Morency also noted that one person, Duguay, reached out to him to say his name never should have been on the list. In an interview with Radio-Canada, Duguay said he was asked to put his name on the list, and considered it, but ultimately said no.
Landry, Hailey Duffy, Madison Duffy and Weir released a joint statement through the NDP. Duguay also released one through the party.
"We are disappointed that our names were added to this letter without our consent,” the statement from Landry, Hailey and Madison Duffy and Weir reads
“We were proud to represent the New Brunswick NDP in the last election as candidates, and continue to be proud to support the NB NDP — both provincially and federally. We were shocked that news report stated otherwise. And shocked at statements that the people of New Brunswick would have a hard time voting for Jagmeet for who he is.”
This is not a surprise for anyone who has paid any attention to E May.
her whole political carrier has been typified by attempting to undermine the NDP which she wishes to supplant.
she has been less critical of the Cons and positively reverential to the Liberals by comparison.
And it is very, very telling that she continues to repeat the canard that the NDP brought down Paul Martin and caused the Harper government, even though it has been repeatedly proven that the no-confidence motion the NDP voted for would have carried even if the NDP had voted against it.
It really begins to look as though she cares more about wiping out the NDP than any other objective-with the sole exception of her bizarre insistence on trying to reconcile green values with capitalism, an insistence that always ends up sabotaging her goal of wiping out the NDP.
But why did the NDP vote with Harper & the Conservatives in 2005?
Their votes may not have made a difference, but it's the *optics* of voting with the Conservatives/Harper that stuck in the minds of some progressive voters.
But why did the NDP vote with Harper & the Conservatives in 2005?Their votes may not have made a difference, but it's the *optics* of voting with the Conservatives/Harper that stuck in the minds of some progressive voters.
Because the Liberals were embroiled in a spending scandal that was chipping away at their popularity. The anger at the Liberals had been so great that had the NDP voted with them, they would have been tarred as supporting corruption, and that could have been enough to hand the Conservatives a majority government then.
If we're going to play the game of who is responsible for letting Harper in power, why are we letting the Liberals off the hook for going back on a coalition agreement that would have ousted the Conservatives 7 years before the Canadian public had a chance to do so?
But why did the NDP vote with Harper & the Conservatives in 2005?
Their votes may not have made a difference, but it's the *optics* of voting with the Conservatives/Harper that stuck in the minds of some progressive voters.
Because they had major and legitimate issues with the Liberal government that that government refused to address.
Why does it matter that they voted against the Liberal government-it's irrelevant that they voted with the Cons, since any no-confidence motion requires minor parties to vote for that motion whoever the official opposition might be at the time. And if you're going to make an issue of the NDP "voting with the Conservatives"-which is clearly not a fair way to describe this-should you not be making at least an equal issue of the Conservatives voting with the Bloc on this motion?
And it matters that the motion would still have passed even if the NDP had voted with the Liberals-just as it matters that defeating the motion would only have delayed the election by an additional month and there is nothing the Liberals could have done in that month that could possibly have made any difference in the outcome of the election.
And if you're going to bring up the very, very late legislation that supposedly would have passed-news flash, the Cons and the Bloc would have defeated all those bills no matter what-why the HELL didn't the Liberals bring that up earlier? It's not as though they had no alternative but to bring those measures up right at the very end of the sitting.
In any case, it's been proved that the NDP was not to blame for the Harper victory and May has no justification for refusing to let that canard die.
1984 election results
Cons - 211 seats
Liberals - 40 seats
NDP - 30 seats
What on earth is your point in posting election results from thirty-five years ago? In what possible way is the outcome of the 1984 election relevant to the conversation we're having here?
David Coon, NB Green Party leader to provide NDP candidates with a written apology.
Quite the contrast in behaviour from the federal Greens, eh!
https://globalnews.ca/news/5867907/green-party-leader-david-coon-apologizes/
1984 election results
Cons - 211 seats
Liberals - 40 seats
NDP - 30 seats
What on earth is your point in posting election results from thirty-five years ago? In what possible way is the outcome of the 1984 election relevant to the conversation we're having here?
LOL
It says something about how little people pay attention to or care about political pundits.
With the internet age splintering the media a million ways I’m not sure that many people are engaged in politics any more. I think this upcoming election might go greatly unnoticed compared to previous national campaigns.
With the internet age splintering the media a million ways I’m not sure that many people are engaged in politics any more. I think this upcoming election might go greatly unnoticed compared to previous national campaigns.
I don't think we can blame it on online media. In the UK and US we are seeing leftwing movements motivating their bases to swing pollitics to the left for the first time in decasdes and that has been largely due to the harnessing of left-leaning online media.
This is a Canadian problem. We arguably have the most anemic left in the world right now. It's easy to blame the parties and the party system but ultimately the Canadian left should have a figured out a program by now to get power.
It still looks like a Liberal minority with the NDP/Greens forcing their hand is our best chance for a progessive government but it's extremely hard to accomplish in FPTP. I think its more likely people get disenheartened by being stuck with the same interparty bickering and absence of real choice and we get another Conservative goverment even though they get less than 40% of the popular vote.
It says something about how little people pay attention to or care about political pundits.
With the internet age splintering the media a million ways I’m not sure that many people are engaged in politics any more. I think this upcoming election might go greatly unnoticed compared to previous national campaigns.
People will tune in when it matters. That will be the last two weeks of the election. People will check out clips of the debates maybe.
Trudeau is lucky because he is the incumbant and it will only be his second term. People are expressing displeasure because they are answering polls not voting. There is no particular reason for the blue Liberals to vote for Scheer. Trudeau favors business.
If Singh comes out of the gate running he may take a surprising number of votes on income inequality and climate change.
To get back on topic I think the NDP's current situation is a win/win. If Singh does surprisingly well that will show that the NDP still has strength. If he does poorly that will indicate that the party may be ripe for a take-over by the left.
Coon is quite the class act. May not so much. With a credible leader the federal Greens would do much better than they have shown to date.
Trudeau is lucky because he is the incumbant and it will only be his second term. People are expressing displeasure because they are answering polls not voting. There is no particular reason for the blue Liberals to vote for Scheer. Trudeau favors business.
That's wishful thinking if you're a Liberal. The Liberal brand was seriously damaged for a decade and Trudeau managed to promise a generational shift and a new direction to the party which was easier to sell because Mulclair had muddied the water enough by veering the NDP hard to the centre. But the voters that Trudeau attracted were not solid Liberals.
Trudeau didn't appreciate how fragile the Liberal brand still was and thought he could govern the same insincere way that worked with the old meda. There is no way he is getting the same voter turnout and there is zero reason for Harper voters to abandon Scheer. Trudeau exudes insincerity and the Liberals are getting significantly fewer votes this election. They are lucky Ford is so toxic in Ontario and Bernier might split the right vote in Quebec but the Liberals will be extremely lucky to get a minority. Trudeau's phony style of politics doesn't work with the post-TV voter.
Being pro-business didn't work for Martin or Ignatieff because why would business want a servile servant when they could get a fanatically servile servant with a Conservative government. The Globe and Mail will endorse the Cons as they always do.
Just like every election I've been alive for, the Liberals think all the have to do is say 'Conservatives scary' but this isn't a new strategy and everyone is sick of it even if it has a grain of truth. After a certain point, if that is all you have, it loses its impact.
As much as I would hate to see a Conservative government, it could be a win if it forces the Liberals to adapt to post-TV pollitics and understand that insincerity doesn't fly like it used to even if you are a first term incumbent.
[quote=melovesproles]
This is a Canadian problem. We arguably have the most anemic left in the world right now. It's easy to blame the parties and the party system but ultimately the Canadian left should have figured out a program by now to get power.
[quote=NDPP]
Absolutely so.
Trudeau is lucky because he is the incumbant and it will only be his second term. People are expressing displeasure because they are answering polls not voting. There is no particular reason for the blue Liberals to vote for Scheer. Trudeau favors business.
That's wishful thinking if you're a Liberal. The Liberal brand was seriously damaged for a decade and Trudeau managed to promise a generational shift and a new direction to the party which was easier to sell because Mulclair had muddied the water enough by veering the NDP hard to the centre. But the voters that Trudeau attracted were not solid Liberals.
Trudeau didn't appreciate how fragile the Liberal brand still was and thought he could govern the same insincere way that worked with the old meda. There is no way he is getting the same voter turnout and there is zero reason for Harper voters to abandon Scheer. Trudeau exudes insincerity and the Liberals are getting significantly fewer votes this election. They are lucky Ford is so toxic in Ontario and Bernier might split the right vote in Quebec but the Liberals will be extremely lucky to get a minority. Trudeau's phony style of politics doesn't work with the post-TV voter.
Being pro-business didn't work for Martin or Ignatieff because why would business want a servile servant when they could get a fanatically servile servant with a Conservative government. The Globe and Mail will endorse the Cons as they always do.
Just like every election I've been alive for, the Liberals think all the have to do is say 'Conservatives scary' but this isn't a new strategy and everyone is sick of it even if it has a grain of truth. After a certain point, if that is all you have, it loses its impact.
As much as I would hate to see a Conservative government, it could be a win if it forces the Liberals to adapt to post-TV pollitics and understand that insincerity doesn't fly like it used to even if you are a first term incumbent.
Well, it's certainly true that the Liberals are not the unrivaled dominant power that they were in earlier periods of Canadian history.
Unlike during the Laurier, Mackenzie-King, St. Laurent, Pierre Trudeau, Jean Chretien eras etc., the Liberals are not in a position to be winning 3, 4, 5 back to back elections with multiple majorities, etc. Those long periods of dominance may not come again for a long time, if ever. But compared to where the Liberals were a decade ago under the Martin-Dion-Ignatieff era, the Liberals are in pretty good shape going into this election. And in a much stronger position than the NDP or Bloc, who both used to be bigger rivals for the Liberals.
And just as the Liberals may never again be able to win 3 or 4 terms in a row, the same may apply to the Conservatives. The Cons have a more solid base than the Liberals or the NDP because their vote is no longer divided and about a third of Canadians vote Conservative even in bad elections for the right-wing. But the new Conservative Party (eg. the one that formed in 2003) has not been able to reach the levels of the old Progressive Conservative Party. Even in 2011 when Harper won a majority, he was unable to break 40% of the vote or win a huge Majority the way Mulroney, Diefenbaker, etc. were able to do. Despite the Liberals being at their weakest point in history, the Cons could only win a narrow majority, and it didn't last longer than one term. There also remain some areas of Canada such as Montreal where the Cons haven't won a single seat since Mulroney was PM.
So what we may be seeing in Canada (as in some other Western countries) is a voter fatigue and erosion with all the main parties.
The Liberals aren't polling that much higher than they were heading into the 2006/2008 elections. I strongly disagree that that number is going to improve the closer we get to the election. Trudeau was able to appeal to soft NDP and Green voters in the last election because people wanted to believe he represented a new generation of Liberal. No one believes that anymore.
What exactly are the Liberals running on other than 'Conservatives scary' which yes, there is huge voter fatigue for? Why would a soft Green, Bloc or NDP voter consider supporting Trudeau in this election?
I agree that the Conservatives will not win more than 40% of the vote but that does not matter in our electoral system. Harper's one term majority government came after winning two minority governments. Trudeau could possibly lose government after a single term. That is historically weak.
The Liberals aren't polling that much higher than they were heading into the 2006/2008 elections. I strongly disagree that that number is going to improve the closer we get to the election. Trudeau was able to appeal to soft NDP and Green voters in the last election because people wanted to believe he represented a new generation of Liberal. No one believes that anymore.What exactly are the Liberals running on other than 'Conservatives scary' which yes, there is huge voter fatigue for? Why would a soft Green, Bloc or NDP voter consider supporting Trudeau in this election?
I agree that the Conservatives will not win more than 40% of the vote but that does not matter in our electoral system. Harper's one term majority government came after winning two minority governments. Trudeau could possibly lose government after a single term. That is historically weak.
The reason a soft NDP, Green, or Bloc voter might want to vote Liberal is to stop the Conservatives. This is especially the case with soft NDP voters, as they are very often receptive to the "strategic voting" campaigns. The NDP is also having challenges with organizing, fundraising, and leadership, so it would be better to go with the Liberals anyways. It's true that the Liberal numbers are not higher than they were in 2006-2008. The difference is that this was after years of Liberal rule, and the Conservatives were painting themselves as a fresh party that would clean out the old corruption. Less than 5 years ago we threw out the Conservatives because of their corruption. What do the Conservatives do? They choose to remind us of that. Sure that will fire up the hard core base, but it will scare everyone else into doing what they can to stop Scheer. Scheer's judgement is also much worse than Harper. Take the new Food Guide. Nobody really noticed or cared, except a few representatives of the dairy and meat industries complained. Now Scheer came out swinging and picking a fight, and he's confirming people's suspicions that the Conservatives will place the well being of their wealthy donors above that of the public interest. That's just one example.
A trend that I've noticed is that between Trudeau and Scheer, when one leader is in the news, the other one has to simply step aside and shut up in order to see his poll numbers rise. It's actually quite an even match, there are many things that can happen, and that's why I can still see the Liberals or Conservatives winning a majority next month.
Yes it has been some time now, but nevertheless, why did David Chernushenco quite as Deputy Leader of the Greens?
Yes it has been some time now, but nevertheless, why did David Chernushenko quit as Deputy Leader of the Greens?
That's wishful thinking if you're a Liberal. The Liberal brand was seriously damaged for a decade and Trudeau managed to promise a generational shift and a new direction to the party which was easier to sell because Mulclair had muddied the water enough by veering the NDP hard to the centre. But the voters that Trudeau attracted were not solid Liberals.
Reality doesn't change based on which party or leader you support. Personally I am very impressed by Jagmeet Singh. He will join Dion and Layton as being among the best PMs we never had.
In 2015 Trudeau ran as an underdog outsider (ironic). This campaign he will be running on his record. He has done a lot that Harper would not have done. Just one small act, allowing safe injection sites across Canada, has saved lives. He has lifted water advisories in many FN communities. I think half but I am not sure of that. He promised all so that is a fail but many people will go for the argument he needs another term to "finish" on a lot of promises he has begun to address. I think parties do that on purpose. He remains preferred PM.
It's not that Trudeau Liberals are so great. Far from it. People have never been more cynical. It's that there is so little competition. Much as I support Singh he has failed to inspire, so far. I still hold out hope because most of the swing voters haven't tuned in yet. The polls are measuring the intentions of people who follow politics and/or support a particular party. They rarely share the "undecided" number. They can't just extrapolate because it is a different mindset. Some follow politics but are pragmatics like myself so don't support a party. My vote is free every election. No party should take me for granted. Most undecideds tune in the last week or two. They read the highlights or see clips from the debates. It really takes very little knowledge to decide who to vote for most of the time even for undecided. Question one, which can manage the economy the best, if more than one, who will address climate change. It is not by chance Trudeau focuses on the balance the economy with the environment message.
Recent polls show that Canadians top concerns are climate change and income inequality. People believe that the system favors the wealthy. The NDP is naming both directly. The Conservatives and Liberals are dancing around by talking about affordability and housing as they shill their economic solutions. Debates and campaigns matter.
Ontario is seat rich and the Conservative brand is taking a beating there. Trudeau is also doing well in Quebec, also seat rich. Neither the Conservatives nor NDP are likely to take much from him there.
I take into account the polls but their ability to predict at this point is limited because the undecided determine the election and they can't just extrapolate. It is unlikely Trudeau will win as large a majority but he still may get one. If we are lucky he will get a minority with the NDP as king maker. I'd be very pleased with that outcome. I'd prefer that the NDP win. I just don't see it in the cards.
As much as I would hate to see a Conservative government, it could be a win if it forces the Liberals to adapt to post-TV pollitics and understand that insincerity doesn't fly like it used to even if you are a first term incumbent.
What? A leopard doesn't change its spots. Losing to the Conservatives wouldn't do a thing to change the DNA of the Liberal party.
The Liberals are way better than the Conservatives. The NDP would be better still but so far they don't seem to have what it takes to win.
There is no scenario under which it is better for the Conservatives to win than the Liberals.