Elizabeth May Has HAD IT w/ Jagmeet Singh "LIES & SMEARS" & Calls Him "DESPERATE"

69 posts / 0 new

Fri, 2019-10-04 01:25

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

Fundamentally the GPC and its provincial counterparts everywhere except in Quebec are eco-capitalists with an eco-capitalist approach to everything. I watched Elizabeth May on CBC-TV the other night and when asked about the housing crisis she did not say a thing about non-market housing for example.

Here in Ontario, the provincial Greenie leader Mike Schreiner can't make a speech in the Ontario legislature without using the word "business" (the idea that being green is good for business).

When we speak of the "Green New Deal", the idea is that equity and social justice are an integral part of the struggle against climate change.

While the federal NDP platform isn't by any means perfect, it is much more in the direction of social justice and equity. (Personally, I think the Ontario provincial NDP's platform is much stronger in making these kinds of links).

Fri, 2019-10-04 06:19

(Reply to #52) #53

brookmere

Aristotleded24 wrote:
As far as merging the Green and NDP parties, you would have very practical problems across the country.

You're right that the real problem is what happens at the provincial level. The NDP is a single party with federal and provincial sections. The Greens have distinct parties at the federal and provincial levels, although there's a lot of overlap of membership. Makes the merger of the PCs and Canadian Alliance trivial in comparison.

I just don't see it happening.

Fri, 2019-10-04 13:06

#54

kropotkin1951

The Green's core activists are libertarian capitalists and the NDP core activists are socialist trade unionists. The parties agree on the problem but are headed in different directions to find the solutions.

Fri, 2019-10-04 13:26

(Reply to #54) #55

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The Green's core activists are libertarian capitalists and the NDP core activists are socialist trade unionists. The parties agree on the problem but are headed in different directions to find the solutions.

I would even say that the NDP's core activist base goes beyond socialist trade unionists. It's also socialist oriented community activists from a wide variety of struggles including anti-poverty and tenant activists, anti-racist activists etc. The "base" incorporates an ideological perspective ranging from "left liberals" to Marxists.

When it comes to questions of social struggles and issues of public services for the vast majority of the people, the Greenies have no grassroots connections to people engaged in those struggles whatsoever. They just write up a policy paper and say "It's in Vision Green". And, given their lack of party discipline on broad social issues, they can't be trusted.

That leads to things like the Ontario Greenies supporting Doug Ford's disastrous pot privatization scheme or supporting pre-emptive anti-strike legislation against Ontario Power Generation workers.

That means BC Greenies put roadblocks in the way of increasing minimum wage and card check certification in union organizing drives.

That means the PEI Greenies didn't use their power in a minority legislature to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour in that province either.

Sun, 2019-10-27 10:48

#56

Mighty Middle

Elizabeth May calls out Jagmeet Singh on his continuous lies about the Green Party (see video) calling it one of the hardest things she has gone through

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-SCLZjwpl8

From Macleans

As Elizabeth May put it to Maclean’s on election night, the NDP “spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in disinformation campaigns targeted only at Vancouver Island seats—radio ads, multiple flyers, including to my own home.” May is referring to the NDP working to discredit the Greens. In an interview May gave Power & Politics, she was asked for her stance on abortion. “A woman has a right to a safe, legal abortion,” May said. “I have never wavered from that view since I was eight years old.” When asked if she’d intervene if a Green backbencher introduced a private member’s bill that could reopen the abortion debate, May said she didn’t have the power as Green leader to whip votes or to silence an MP, adding, “and frankly that’s a good thing.” The spectre of the party reopening the debate became a headline after the discovery of fringe Green candidates who had expressed anti-abortion views in the past. The NDP exploited the controversy: Singh attacked May during debates, and the party distributed pamphlets in south Vancouver that claimed the Greens were in cahoots with the Conservatives. May spoke angrily of being “smeared by NDP literature based on untruths” but kept to the “high road,” as she put it. She limited her counterattack to criticism of the NDP’s inability to achieve IPCC targets, a rebuke that predictably failed to generate headlines. The NDP also sent out flyers falsely saying the Greens had flunked Kevin Page’s review; May appeared in a video to correct the record. On election night, as the NDP won ridings that had skewed Green when the writ was dropped, May pointed to the political brinksmanship she called “fake news”: “We faced obstacles we never thought we would face.”

Sun, 2019-10-27 11:31

(Reply to #56) #57

Sean in Ottawa

Ken Burch wrote:

The terms a Green-NDP merger, IMHO, would have to include THESE provisions:

1) May's immediate resignation as leader and her agreement never to play any meaningful role again in how the GPC is run or what it stands for:

2) The democratization and decentralization of both parties-which would also mean the abolition of the pointless NDP policy requiring anyone who joins the federal party to also be a member of the provincial or territorial party in the jurisdiction where they live;

3) The immediate establishment of an small-g "green" and small-l "labour" working group, with the small-l labour contingent coming from the labour grassroots as opposed to being chosen by the calcified, old-line trade union leadership.

4) An official apology from the GPC for all the years May spent falsely blaming the NDP for the election of the Harper government.

5) An agreement that the new party's name would include neither the words "Green" or "New Democratic"-it would need to be a new name for new era.

None of which will happen before May's departure from the scene, of course.

Forget 4 look forward and do not seek the humiliation of partners - even if you think they deserve to be humiliated. The alternative is to continue beating the shit out of each other.

Sun, 2019-10-27 11:34

(Reply to #57) #58

Sean in Ottawa

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The Green's core activists are libertarian capitalists and the NDP core activists are socialist trade unionists. The parties agree on the problem but are headed in different directions to find the solutions.

This simply contradicts every experience I have ever had with them when it comes to the GPC and half of the experiences I have had with the NDP. There is a lot more ground in common among activists than there is among leadership.

Sun, 2019-10-27 16:03

(Reply to #58) #59

Ken Burch

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The Green's core activists are libertarian capitalists and the NDP core activists are socialist trade unionists. The parties agree on the problem but are headed in different directions to find the solutions.

This simply contradicts every experience I have ever had with them when it comes to the GPC and half of the experiences I have had with the NDP. There is a lot more ground in common among activists than there is among leadership.

Well, the two of you are looking at two different sets of GPC supporters. It's entirely reasonable that the sensibilities of GPC types in Ontario could be different than those who work for that party on Vancouver Island.

Sun, 2019-10-27 19:24

(Reply to #59) #60

Sean in Ottawa

Ken Burch wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The Green's core activists are libertarian capitalists and the NDP core activists are socialist trade unionists. The parties agree on the problem but are headed in different directions to find the solutions.

This simply contradicts every experience I have ever had with them when it comes to the GPC and half of the experiences I have had with the NDP. There is a lot more ground in common among activists than there is among leadership.

Well, the two of you are looking at two different sets of GPC supporters. It's entirely reasonable that the sensibilities of GPC types in Ontario could be different than those who work for that party on Vancouver Island.

Absolutely and my point is that a generalization would not be national.

I accept that there are some in the GPC who would not be able to accept a merged left party but I think that a large number would.

My guess is something like 2/3 which puts the NDP up by a chunk of support given that the GPC supporter group I think is higher than the voting number as it is for the NDP as some will not vote when it is about throwing a vote away. Add these groups and you have a more viable party. Add additional numbers who now Liberal for the same reason and I think you have the LPC and this party evenly matched.

Sun, 2019-10-27 20:15

#61

kropotkin1951

I am sorry Sean I know nothing about national politics after all I live so far away from the center of the action.I do not clarify every single thing I say so yes I make generalizations constantly. Unlike you I come here to chat about politics not write academic papers so you get my opinions. You know in a chat room its place to express opinions without having to guard ones words because you will get called on them after they have been parsed.

I was only trying to talk about on the ground politics that I see where I live. However tell me about the ridings in Ontario where the NDP and Green activists have been going at it tooth and nail since 1993, like many of the people of my generation on VI.

Sun, 2019-10-27 20:27

(Reply to #61) #62

brookmere

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I accept that there are some in the GPC who would not be able to accept a merged left party but I think that a large number would.

Getting rid of the separate school system is a signature policy of the Ontario GP and the reason many voters support it. I'll bet a lot of the grassroots members of the ONDP would like this to happen as well but as long as those at the top don't that presents a serious obstacle to any merger.

Sun, 2019-10-27 20:46

#63

JKR

I think if the NDP and Greens don't want to merge they should support the Liberals idea of establishing preferential instant runoff voting (IRV) to replace FPTP. I think Trudeau would go establish IRV if both the NDP and Greens pledged their full support for it.

Sun, 2019-10-27 20:57

#64

kropotkin1951

Why would the NDP and Greens every agree to that form of voting?

Sun, 2019-10-27 21:02

(Reply to #64) #65

Mighty Middle

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Why would the NDP and Greens every agree to that form of voting?

Elizabeth May just offered an Olive Branch to Trudeau to get Electoral Reform back on the agenda, by saying she'd back Trudeau "Preferential Balloting" idea if he put ER back on the agenda.

Sun, 2019-10-27 21:05

(Reply to #65) #66

JKR

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Why would the NDP and Greens every agree to that form of voting?

Because it would deal with the problem of vote splitting. With an IRV ballot, people who support both the NDP and Greens would be able to put those parties 1-2 or 2-1 on the ballot without the fear of splitting the vote and helping another party win.

Sun, 2019-10-27 22:27

(Reply to #66) #67

Ken Burch

JKR wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Why would the NDP and Greens every agree to that form of voting?

Because it would deal with the problem of vote splitting. With an IRV ballot, people who support both the NDP and Greens would be able to put those parties 1-2 or 2-1 on the ballot without the fear of splitting the vote and helping another party win.

Unfortunately, it would entrench the Lib-con duopoly for the rest of eternity.

Sun, 2019-10-27 22:56

(Reply to #67) #68

JKR

Ken Burch wrote:

JKR wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Why would the NDP and Greens every agree to that form of voting?

Because it would deal with the problem of vote splitting. With an IRV ballot, people who support both the NDP and Greens would be able to put those parties 1-2 or 2-1 on the ballot without the fear of splitting the vote and helping another party win.

Unfortunately, it would entrench the Lib-con duopoly for the rest of eternity.

I think in 2011 it would have given the NDP more seats and reduced the Conservatives to a minority or even given the NDP a minority.

It would also mostly end the issue of strategic voting that plaques our FPTP elections.

Mon, 2019-10-28 00:14

(Reply to #68) #69

Sean in Ottawa

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I am sorry Sean I know nothing about national politics after all I live so far away from the center of the action.I do not clarify every single thing I say so yes I make generalizations constantly. Unlike you I come here to chat about politics not write academic papers so you get my opinions. You know in a chat room its place to express opinions without having to guard ones words because you will get called on them after they have been parsed.

I was only trying to talk about on the ground politics that I see where I live. However tell me about the ridings in Ontario where the NDP and Green activists have been going at it tooth and nail since 1993, like many of the people of my generation on VI.

I am not sure what the purpose was for this reaction: You made a statemnt and I said it did not apply everywhere. There are a lot of members in ridings that do not elect MPs they also have a say in the direction and any potential merger of a party.

I would like that it would be okay by you if people outside your region gave an opinion on their regions without you sounding upset about it.

I was not challenging your opinion about VI just saying that it did not resonate as being applicable here. Not something I expected what be all that upsetting for you.

Elizabeth May Has HAD IT w/ Jagmeet Singh "LIES & SMEARS" & Calls Him "DESPERATE"

Pages