Green Party Supporters: What would it take, etc....part II

115 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ken Burch
Green Party Supporters: What would it take, etc....part II
sway

Sorry Ken I must have been typing that last one and did not know about this new one

Who here would adopt a policy where the leaders draw non competative ridings out of a hat?

How else can the Greens win seats without trying to further destroy liberals and ndp?

 

Yes the Greens without seats can still compete .....just ask loosing ndp and liberals from the last election

 

For us to ever get together as a truley  unified left ......the country needs to be as important as iggy's and lieytons ego's are to themselves.

 

Good night

 

Ken Burch

Well, you do appear to be in need of some sleep, so good night indeed.

Buddy Kat

The Greens are a conservative dream come true ...no doubt about! While I agree with a lot of what Sven is saying the only thing the right is petrified of is the NDP. They are not scared of the Liberals ...shit they hop from party to party all the time (lib/con) ...the only thing that keeps those 2 parties in any form of line is the NDP. The  problem is one of media control and promotion via propaganda...and even the Greens get the same or more than the NDP. That's what accounts for any gains the Greens have gotten so far. You don't think the right wing media knows this and is responsible they just made a right wing media mouthpiese a senator for doing such great partisan work of this nature.

 

Now if the Greens get a nationwide media empire on their side just maybe they will be able to sway the NDP ..same with the NDP whose name has been virtually demonized by the right wing media for far too long. The NDP tried to fight back calling the right corporate bums..but I think they should come out and start calling them neocon scum and really take a stand. That seems to be the biggest problem the NDP is facing right now...they can't take a stand on anything and stick by their guns ..they seem to be acting desperate for votes and it is showing really bad. Maybe a new NDP  leader will sway the Greens..someone like Mulcair who doesn't come off like a used car salesman but a more serious fellow. From Quebec too...Watch the neocon scum get decimated in the next Federal election because they don't have the blessing of Quebec.

 

madmax

There was a time when environmental concerns were shaded in forms of Red and Blue.  The Blue Greens are the Eco Capitalists, and the Red Greens are the Environmental Socialists.  During the 80s each party had their share of environmentalists and the ball was being pushed forwards.  Acid Rain was dealt with by all parties, but the leader to pitch it to the US and get them on Board was a PC.  All that came to an end with the Reformers who had no environmental soul in their platform. The collapse of the PCs, the formation of the BQ and the punishing of the NDP in 1993. All environmental issues were left in the hands of the Liberals. Why would anyone be surprised that nothing was done? Pressure needs to come from many parties to push forward an agenda.

The Reform and PCs merged however, they lost their environmental aspect, not even room for the eco capitalists.

The Liberals .. they tried with the ECO BLUE/RED DION and failed to attract any kind of support. Infact they went to the lowest levels in their history. Perhaps it was their track record of 13 years and no action.

The NDP have rebounded, and come back from the 6% days of 1993. Their environmental platform is as good as any, and has an element of social justice that is missing in the green party. The NDP isn't trying to attract Eco Capitalists, nor is there a reason to. The NDP is the "Socialist" party and therefore the environmental socialists party. That tends to mean taxing those who can afford to pay, and that is in direct contrast with the Capitalists who want  a free lunch. Same with the Eco Capitalists. Environment takes a back seat to tax policy.

However.. it would sound like this is the element missing in the Present Day Conservative Party. While Dion bumbled and stumbled, and blew the Liberals opportunity at Eco Capitalism, the Conservatives could pull it off, and then attract all the people with large incomes who want a tax break.

This moves that dynamic back to its traditional roles of Capital and Social balance. It also reduces the Economic and social issues back to square one and the parties can actually look at productive ways to protect the environment.

Most of the Green Party boost came from former Red Tories  or Liberals who feel they have no say. Previous Greens could easily fit within the NDP and some have already moved or been driven out of the Greens and over to the NDP.  Some just driven into Oblivion, like the Alberta Greens.

There has been a Green Party for 30 years. It hasn't done much during this time, and is unlikely to do so in the future. Some can argue that the party has held back the environmental movement. Issues important to the environment get reduced to a tax policy. Look at BC, only a fool believes that the Liberal Carbon Tax is going to save the environment . But the BCs Greens did and some political motivated environmentalists who lost the forest through the trees.  Ironically the BC HST is going to Generate even more revenue and its higher and will apply to the same Carbon Products as the CST.  But in a nutshell, this is all about tax policy and who pays. As long as you pay, you can pollute. And as long as we tax pollution, you can get an income tax break.

All in all a little naive.

However it does expose the difference between Socialists and Capitalists.

Imagine if someone just said... here is your Carbon Ration for the month.....  the Chinese do it with Children but we can't ration carbon emitting fuels....and yes our governments rationed during the war the amount of gasoline you could purchase.   

For some.. this is too drastic.

But then again... someone here has suggest that Unions are the problem and that they would leave the Greens and Join the NDP if they eliminated their ties to Unions.  Unions and people are allowed to associate with anyone and any party... and they do. Freely. No other party is going to ban freedom of association or Unions, and the NDP foundation came from the Unions. Regardless of whether the Unions support the NDP or not. Just like the NDP supports Pro Choice  , that does not mean that those women who support that policy will vote NDP. 

What is important is that someone has decided to highlight unions while ignoring the Corporate theft that has been bleeding the nations and bankrupting our citizens. It is for this reason, we must have the NDP around. For balance.

 

Compare that to the flighty answers by Elizabeth May were she tries to play like shes pro life to get some votes, but flips and flops like the best of the Liberal Acrobats.

The NDP needs to maintain its strong Environmental and Social Policies and attract those people within the Green Party that support those same beliefs.

The Liberals need to maintain being all things to all people. I think it would be wrong of Ignatieff to stray to far away from the environment. They do have some environmentalists among them.

The CPC is the weakest link. They must get serious about the environment. When they do, the Eco Capitalists will follow the money, and the power.

Then the Green Party will go back to its anti nuclear roots and maybe even get serious about the environment again. But it would be smaller, like it was before.

 

 

 

 

Mojoroad1

Regarding Smalltownguy and the previous thread on small business..... in fact The NDP was talking about protecting small business (and keeping small business taxes @ 11% in the last election.) That and expanding what the definition of what a "Small Business" is. IOW keeping taxes low for the bread and butter of Canadian economy. The MSM ignored this little fact.

2008 NDP platform:

 

* Jack Layton would maintain the 11 per cent small business tax rate. The corporate tax revenues in the NDP platform subtract the $0.6-billion annual cost of continuing this small business rate reduction from Finance Canada's figures on the cost of all corporate tax cuts.
* Jack Layton's environment plan includes $500 million annually in small business and individual incentives.
* The NDP platform provides a detailed year-by-year costing of all spending commitments. By contrast, Liberal Finance Critic John McCallum acknowledged that Dion's platform costing was "a little bit misleading". (National Post, September 24, 2008)
* Tax cuts for large corporations have not created jobs. From 1987 to 2006, the federal corporate income tax rate was slashed from 37.8% to 22.12%. During this same period, the 41 corporations affiliated to the Canadian Council of Chief Executives cut their combined workforces by 118,000 employees. (FTA 20 Years Later, CCPA,
* Instead of no-strings-attached corporate tax giveaways, the NDP would reduce taxes to the extent that companies invest in Canadian jobs by:
o fully extending for three years the 50% Accelerated Capital Cost Allowance for manufacturing machinery and equipment;
o enhancing research and development tax credit; and
o increasing by 50% the tax credit for employers that hire apprentices.

As for Frank De Jong (I don't know of a "De Yong" so I assume that's whom sway was referring to.) being leader...
A few Nuggets: (from wiki)

De Jong supported Harris's leadership of the federal party until Harris stepped down in 2006, at which time de Jong supported David Chernushenko's leadership bid. Like Harris, De Jong is an eco-capitalist. He defines his political philosophy as "socially progressive, fiscally conservative, and environmentally aware".[2] He has long supported conservative economic policies, including a gradual shift from the taxation of incomes to the taxation of natural resources. Recently, he has also spoken against extensive government subsidies and funding for crown corporations.

Electoral History:
* Canadian federal election, 1988, Rosedale, 397 votes (winner: David MacDonald, Progressive Conservative)
* Ontario provincial election, 1990, Ottawa East, 723 votes (winner: Bernard Grandmaitre, Liberal)
* Ottawa municipal election, 1991, Capital Ward, (winner: Jim Watson)
* Canadian federal election, 1993, Ottawa-Vanier, 606 votes (winner: Jean-Robert Gauthier, Liberal)
* federal by-election, February 13, 1995, Ottawa-Vanier, 218 votes (winner: Mauril Belanger, Liberal)
* Ontario provincial election, 1995, Nepean, 390 votes (winner: John Baird, Progressive Conservative
* Canadian federal election, 1997, Ottawa Centre, 855 votes (winner: Mac Harb, Liberal)
* Ontario provincial election, 1999, Parkdale-High Park, 501 votes (winner: Gerard Kennedy, Liberal)
* Ontario provincial election, 2003, Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey, 3161 votes (third place) (winner: Ernie Eves, Progressive Conservative)
* Ontario provincial by-election, March 17, 2005, Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey, 2767 votes (fourth place) (winner: John Tory, Progressive Conservative)
* Ontario provincial by-election, September 14, 2006, Parkdale-High Park, 1758 votes (fourth place) (winner: Cheri DiNovo, New Democrat)
* Ontario provincial by-election, February 8, 2007, Burlington, Ontario, 734 votes 4/6 (winner: Joyce Savoline, Progressive Conservative)
* Ontario provincial election, 2007, Davenport, 3061 votes (third place) (winner: Tony Ruprecht, Liberal)

Er, Mr. De Jong is hardly going to garner any more votes than the right wing Greens already have to offer. Look at his vote totals in each election (over 19 years) he's contended in, also note that he has lost (& usually quite badly) to all three parties all over Ontario. Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats. As far as I can tell the "grass roots" organization is run top down federally & provincially by Conservatives. That's 13 elections coming in third or forth (mostly dead last). Good luck with that.

 

sway

 

Yes you are correct on the name mistake .... Mojoroad1

 

Sorry Frank.... is was quite late as I two finger typed that.

As far as Franks chances ....I disagree for several reasons and know that winning seats is not the only goal.....the loss of seats to others accomplishes many of our goals as well.

Getting the ndp and liberals back to the left is my goal as today there is no reason to vote for those two...for millions of us!

The whole point I am trying to make is that we are not done..we are not over...we have just begun!

 

I believe issues outside of the economy will become much more important and no one but the greens have policy to bring  back the non voters....if you check and analyze it all ...where did the 41% of new green voters really come from if you disagree?

We can beat you with leaving every vote you got last time ...with you ..as most did not vote or very close.

The biggest chuck of the electorate are still out there to be won over and we will!

We will surprise lots of you and maybe some of you should give us a little more credit rather than just think us a problem or a joke party like some of you obviously do.

 

Good discussion though.

 


 

Mojoroad1

Sway, I hope you know I wasn't bashing your typing (I've been known to make 2 finger mistakes myself)

"As far as Franks chances ....I disagree for several reasons and know that winning seats is not the only goal.....the lose of seats to others accomplishes many of our goals as well."

YUP, therefore being a proxy to help elect right wingers is a great idea??????


"Getting the ndp and liberals back to the left is my goal as today there is no reason to vote for those two...for millions of us!"

ERM, then Frank De Jong is your man? Alrighty then.

Cheers.

 

 


 

Snert Snert's picture

Boy...  "sway".....

That's an awful lot of excess white space there........ and a lot of periods.......

 

What's your take on marijuana prohibition.......  or Jews............?

sway

My take on marijuana prohibition?

You must just be kidding ...right?...obviously with your planted or baiting question?

 I agree with this......

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irWNED6qJow

 

As to Jews.......My take on Jews?

 

What ever that means?

But I am not some closet Nazi or anything ...some of my family were jewish .....and I am speaking about the religion not any discription of a country that likes to think it speaks for all Jews,

 

I am a human rights activist....we are all the same or should be.....I have no more feelings about Jews than I do catholics or Protestants or anyone else.

I would outlaw religion as a sure sign of the devil if she really existed ......actually if the truth be told

Or I would make a new church the church of all humanity....based on freedom love and unity instead of the continued exploitation of the weaker parts of society.

 

Why?

Mojoroad1

-.-

 

sandpiper

But I thought he was banned. Isn't he the weird guy who's suing Elizabeth May? Greens seem to think he's nuts.

Mojoroad1

-.-

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
I agree with this......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irWNED6qJow


LOLZ!!!
I'm asking because I think you're John Shavluk.
So you point me to a video on YouTube, uploaded by.... wait for it..... yup!....... John Shavluk!

Pogo Pogo's picture

MadMax, that was a very thought provoking post.

sway

LOL

Sway here

Think what ever you want as I am tired of this line from everyone when they have no real comeback.

Would it surprise you to know that many are here because of yes shavluk?

Do any of you actually remember the threads and why he was banned?

It only happened because he gave up on jacky and went green.

 

Are those your real names here?,,,LOL

remind remind's picture

Shavluk was banned because he got abusive with board memebers. I was here that night and remember quite well the ugly commentary.

good post madmax, however I doubt they will go back to their anti-nuke roots, anymore than they will go back to tree spiking .

Erik Redburn

Ah fukk it, no need to waste another ten minutes.  It is Shavluk,,,I'm sure the mods will notice.  Avoiding the multiple comas is the only difference.

sandpiper

That is a thoughtful post madmax.

What do you all think has to happen in Canada to change the tenor of the debate on the environment in the Conservative Party? When I look at other countries, save us, the US and maybe Australia, I see citizens and politicians of all stripes taking climate change pretty seriously. 

Can people like Ignatieff and Harper be reached? Will the voting public only care to demand good environmental policy when it's too late? 

Ken Burch

Erik Redburn wrote:

Ah fukk it, no need to waste another ten minutes.  It is Shavluk,,,I'm sure the mods will notice.  Avoiding the multiple comas is the only difference.

How many comas did he have?

Erik Redburn

Ha.  Good question, obviously one too many.  My own writing could use some work at times too, but at least I try. 

Erik Redburn

And yes, that was a good post MadMax, thank you for elevating the subject again.  I am afriad that the Cons will be lost till this generation are gone, or till too many shore front proprties and ski resorts are lost, which ever comes first.   North Americans I don't think ever developed any sense of limits on resources thanks to all the prime land preserved so kindly for us by their rightful owners, our European cousins at least learned a few limits.  But I digress again, let us know what you think.

sway

What substance causes that paranoia?

 

now as this was at the end of the other thread I  could not  reply

 

 

 

""

 

Quote:
he lied about the volenteering of a resignations from kirk tousaw and dana larsen as all of us know and heard it from both of them that they would have been dumped had they not agreed easily.

 

Jack Layton was not involved at all in my resignation as an NDP candidate.

I wanted to talk to Jack but Gerry Scott (BC Campaign Coordinator) blocked that and pressured me very heavily to resign.

 

For better or for worse, Layton was not involved in this decision at all.""

 

 

Ummmm..................LOL........hahahhahahhahahahhhahahahhahahhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

 

 

 

There I hope I got it out........ummm oky  doky larsen...yeah each province just deletes jacky's candidates and phones in later .....

 

You mean he did not fly in to congratulate you personally so it must be true ...eh??

 

 

GO GET ANOTHER NOMINATION ...show me sunshine

 

You admitted it was their way or the highway or do you forget?

 

 

Anyway.....I guess as it just must be shavluk ...there is no point in believing anything...eh?

 

Wow

 

and I guess you will have much to say after the convention....?

 

trust me ...so will I

 

Cheers ......  and what the hell...john says hello all !

 

he is busy doing his part in the prince and the pauper tour......

seems the prince is soon  taking a holiday down south and shavluk is still going strong 19 years in...and gearing up to take up the slack with the prince on holidays....yes he will get up 10 minutes earlier every day...LOL

 

 

maybe write a poem about how much he means to yahhhhhhhhhh....LOL

 

What a bunch

 

(written in the style shavluk for the entertainment value amoung babblers....yes....babblers helping babblers)

Ken Burch

Dana Larsen, in the predecessor thread to this, said that Jack Layton had no role in his resignation.  Clearly DANA would have no reason to lie about that.

Also, given that the disclosures about Dana would have guaranteed his defeat had he NOT resigned, it's not as though his resignation did the party or himself or the legalization cause any harm.

sway

 

""Also, given that the disclosures about Dana would have guaranteed his defeat had he NOT resigned, it's not as though his resignation did the party or himself or the legalization cause any harm.""

 

 

Yes it is!

it hurt Both

And as dana wants to believe that ....most should know by now why not to do certain drugs I guess

And I guess if you do not think the greens going up 41% had anything to with their RE-LEGALIZED  cannabis policy and lieyton spending what ?? 15 million and hardly going up a vote ...nothing I could say would sway you....have fun kids

 

But just wait for act two soon coming  ....as you  will maybe catch up then.

 

The LSD party is what I will think of always and so does lieyton I bet !

 

 

Go get a resolution approved ....soon we can compare notes ...

 

oh yes ...I am so excited for you ndpers to be brave and embrace sane cannabis policy...yep I bet its the first one appoved ....eh?...LOL

Dana Larsen

Quote:
Also, given that the disclosures about Dana would have guaranteed his defeat had he NOT resigned, it's not as though his resignation did the party or himself or the legalization cause any harm.

Well I was unlikely to win in my riding, the NDP traditionally comes in third place there anyways.

But I like to think that I would have done well if I had continued with my campaign. The people in my riding already knew that I was a pot smoker, and considering the pot-friendly atmosphere on the Sunshine Coast and in Whistler, which are all in my riding, I doubt it would have hurt me locally much.

I think Gerry Scott was worried that I would derail the national campaign with too much attention on me and my issue. I also think there would have been no reason for me to resign if the NDP had been better prepared to deal with me as a candidate.

Anyways, this is a discussion for another thread, isn't it?

But to get back to this thread, it does seem that for some Green folks at least, the NDP adopting a stronger marijuana/drug policy would help to draw them in to the party.

Ken Burch

I meant no disrespect to you, Dana.  I was simply trying to illustrate that your being made to get out of the race didn't exactly deprive you of a landslide victory.  This seems important given that "sway" seems to blame Jack Layton personally for your withdrawal and to have taken your departure for the campaign as a personal betrayal by the NDP leadership.

You're no doubt right about the drug policy.

 

sway

I from the bottom of my heart hope the ndp yes does come to their senses and embraces sane cannabis policy at the convention....sadly though with the baggage attached to endpro it will not happen in my view and because of it continue to grow the Greens like wild fire!

 

Have fun...see you in halifax

 

 

LOL...just watch for me

Interested Observer Interested Observer's picture

umm... digress much?

I don't think I've seen more than one maybe two people actually answer the question.

 

I'll bring up one fundamental point that no other party than the greens acknowledge:

The limits to growth

Until another party is prepared to act rationally about the future of this planet, I guarantee you that the greens will not fade.

Stockholm

I haven't seen the Green Party in canada ever actually say that they are opposed to there being any economic growth and I;d be surprised if more than a teeny fraction of the airheads who vote Green actually have that in mind when they vote for that party.

If the Greens' "USP" (unique selling proposition" actually is that they are the only party that is pledged to shrinking the economy - then why aren't they staging fiestas to celebrate the recession and calling for government action to make the GDP get even smaller - and maybe cheering everytime people lose jobs and benefits etc...

KenS

What a party 'acknowkedges' in internal discussion- no matter how braod ranging that might be- means squat.

Party's are rightfully judged on the issues, and the content they put in, that they invest whatever 'public space capital' they have.

So point out to me where the Green party has made a feature of the neccesity that we have a serious discussion about limits to growth... let alone where they have clearly made a feature of saying there are limits to growth.

IE, in practice the GPC makes a feature of "we are different,"  "we do politics different," etc. And a very small handful of other issues.

I judge the NDP, including policy critical discussions on this board, by the same standard- whats in your policy books, let alone something a lot of us have a belief in common, means nothing if little or nothing is invested in making the issue have legs.

Ken Burch

sway wrote:

 

 

 

LOL...just watch for me

 

I'm fairly sure you will be seen.  And I hope someone will be there to bring you munchies.

Interested Observer Interested Observer's picture

KenS:

It's right in the introduction to the 'Vision Green' policy document:

"Green Party solutions are rational because the Green Party, unlike other parties, understands the scientifically verified limits to growth set by the carrying capacity of our planet. We must work within these limits. Otherwise, we will exhaust resources, degrade our environment and put our economy, health and children's future at risk."

Link

 

Stockholm:

If you're not prepared to offer solutions to the problems of limits to growth/carrying capacity etc. don't expect greens to fall in line with your favorite party. Not everybody who votes green understands these concepts fully, but you could say the same for advanced ideas of any party. However, I would argue that most of them get it on at least a basic level. This is especially true with young people. Also, they vote for their own reasons and calling them names won't make them change their vote. But I'm sure it gives you immense sadistic pleasure to rant on like that! Wink

KenS

Interested Observer wrote:

KenS:

It's right in the introduction to the 'Vision Green' policy document:

"Green Party solutions are rational because the Green Party, unlike other parties, understands... "

Apperently you chose to ignore my comment addressing just this. Excerpt:

KenS wrote:

What a party 'acknowkedges' in internal discussion- no matter how broad ranging that might be- means squat.

So point out to me where the Green party has made a feature of the neccesity that we have a serious discussion about limits to growth... let alone where they have clearly made a feature of saying there are limits to growth.

In practice the GPC makes a feature of "we are different,"  "we do politics different," etc. And a very small handful of other issues.

I judge the NDP, including policy critical discussions on this board, by the same standard...

 

Putting something in a gigantic policy document does not put an issue into play. And it doesn't matter how dearly held the idea/principle is.

Practically speaking, you can judge the priority level of issues/ideas/principles for a party, by what the Leader spends time on during the limited windows they have when the media will repeat what they say. This is even more true for the GPC, since the media is only going to repeat what Elizabeth May says.

EMay talking in blogs or at pep rallies about limits to growth counts no more in itself than does the fact its a plaque in your policy document. You don't judge by what the choir talks about among temselves, you judge by what they choose to sing out.

Interested Observer wrote:
Not everybody who votes green understands these concepts fully...

There's a huge understatement for you. For any party, the number of voters who are not members / core supporters, and who read big policy documents is a tiny fraction.

Which is why you depend on the Leader and a very few other highly outreaching media to get across the messages you priorize.

May definitely uses interviews that she knows will have the widest possible distribution to get out messages she and the GPC have decided are what they most want voters to hear.

Has even a simplified version of 'we have to put limits to growth' ever come up in one such May interview? [And it would have to be put into play several times if even minimal impact for it was sought.]

 

KenS

.

Interested Observer Interested Observer's picture

I'm not really following you KenS.

It is essentially a guiding concept behind many other policies. It's the true meaning of sustainability. etc. etc.

It's to the green party as "to each according to his ability..." is to communism.

Elementary school kids even know the phrase: "What's the point of jobs on a dead planet."

Interested Observer Interested Observer's picture

A simple google search netted me this example of Emay using the term:

 

Elizabeth May unveils party's Green vision for Canada

(Ottawa, October 15th, 2007) Green Party leader Elizabeth May unveiled the party's sweeping Vision Green policy document today and invited Prime Minister Stephen Harper to incorporate all or any of its hundreds of policy innovations in tomorrow's Speech from the Throne.

"It's time for visionary leadership and for policies that focus on our future, not more of the same tired old ideas designed to achieve some fleeting political advantage," Ms. May said. "I respectfully urge the Prime Minister to study what the Green Party is proposing because I believe that it will give him new insight into what real solutions look like."

Ms. May and party deputy leader Adriane Carr are launching Vision Green at events in Ottawa and Vancouver today. The 160-page document lays out a comprehensive blueprint for "the kind of Canada we want in 2020 and how we get there from here," said Ms. May. Developed by the party's 31-member Shadow Cabinet with input from experts, activists and citizens who participated in cross-Canada policy workshops, it presents leading-edge thinking and realistic solutions for all the issues facing Canadians - from foreign policy to forestry, from taxation to toxic chemicals.

"The Green Party is the only party that's telling Canadians the truth," said Ms. May, "and the truth is that the days of politics dominated by short-term band-aid fixes are over, that the old battles between left and right are irrelevant, that what we need is a fundamental shift of direction towards a stable, fair and sustainable future. Vision Green is the detailed, practical expression of that change of direction."

Ms. May said that in her travels around the country since becoming Green Party leader last year, she had become aware of a growing sense of unease and disappointment among Canadians - and a growing alienation from the politics practised in Ottawa.

"They feel it in their bones - something is askew. They are working longer hours, leading more stress-filled lives in a deteriorating environment and yet their leaders keep telling them that they are better off," she said.

"Green Party policies are designed to support a society where the pressure to make a living doesn't crowd out having a life, where having more is less important than being more. Unlike the other parties, we understand and accept the scientifically verified limits to growth imposed by the carrying capacity of our planet. We acknowledge that if we do not work within these limits we will exhaust resources, destroy our environment and put our economy, health and children's future at risk.

"Our opponents who dismiss us as a one-issue party now have their response. The solutions contained in Vision Green cover every aspect of Canadian life - the economy, social policy, the environment and our place in the world."

 

Interested Observer Interested Observer's picture

Also, apparently a survey was done of green party supporters about limits to growth here:

Survey says: Green Party members overwhelmingly accept limits-to-growth and believe nature has an intrinsic value.

Source

 

Sorry, I wasn't able to find a version that didn't require sign-up to view the whole article.

KenS

Interested Observer wrote:

Also, apparently a survey was done of green party supporters about limits to growth here:

Survey says: Green Party members overwhelmingly accept limits-to-growth ....

Are you deliberately obtuse?

Now I'm guessing, not. Because you did say you don't understand. But its a mighty fine line between 'deliberate' and 'willful'.

I just finished saying twice, at least, that what GPC or NDP members beleive, is not the proof of the pudding. Again: you, we, all of us, are judged by the priorities we show. May has her time in the lime light... what does she talk about when she has that. I already explained why party news releases such as you quoted from above show nothing about the rubber hitting the road. When May has the limelight she knows it, and she puts out the message she most wants people to hear. When has that ever been about limits to growth?

Stockholm

Judging from what May chooses to spend about 99% of the time talking about - the main principles of the Green party seem to be 1. That Elizabeth May should be in the leaders debate 2. That Elizabeth May should be an MP thanks to the other parties not running against her 3. That a future Liberal/NDP coalition government should appoint Elizabeth May to the Senate 4. Did I mention that Elizabeth May should get more attention?

Interested Observer Interested Observer's picture

KenS:

So stop beating around the bush and make your accusation, already.

 

Stockholm:

You really are obsessed with Emay just like many other posters here. I think it has reached the point where your projected image of her is less obsessive than the speed at which you all club her with your vitriol.

I know it works differently in other parties but we didn't elect her to be the stalinist leader of our party in which the party name and the leader are one and the same, just the chief spokesperson.

Specifically to your points:

1. That has been the objective regardless of the current leader. 2. Dion did that of his own volition. 3. Not even worth responding to. 4. Wow did you think that one up all by yourself? Surprised

 

Back on topic:

What I mentioned was what I believe is the chief difference between the greens and the ndp/libs/cons. If you want us to disappear you must at least try to understand where we are coming from.

Is there someone on here without such an obvious agenda that could respond, or am I just wasting my time?

Stockholm

"I know it works differently in other parties but we didn't elect her to be the stalinist leader of our party in which the party name and the leader are one and the same, just the chief spokesperson."

Could have fooled me. To a greater extent than any other party, the Green Party is really nothing more than a personality cult around its leader (which given her charmless personality isn't saying much). There is a reason why for years she has been nicknamed in environmental circles as Elizabeth Meeeeeeeeeee. For someone who is just a "chief spokesperson" she seems to have perfected the art of making up policies on the back of a cocktail napkin, diverting massive proportions of her party's very meager resources into her win her vanity campaign to win a seat and now she puts out a press release to say that the Green Party has "learned from its mistake" and will put even MORE dispropotionate effort into getting her elected in the next election to the exclusion of anyone else. In the last election, she all but said in the closing week of the campaign that she wanted people to vote for her in Central Nova and to vote Liberal everywhere else. If this is what you get from a mere "chief spokesperon" for the party - you better get some better people doing the hiring.

KenS

There are two components to what a political party stands for.

There is what through whatever internal processes the party membership decides they want to stand for.

Then there is what the public identifies as the core messages and issues from the party.

The first part is what we are all in it for. But the second part is why there is a point to having a political party: you can put into play in the noisy and hurly burly public arena what the internal processes of the party could never achieve. Ideally, you elect people to put that into play. But even if you don't elect people, you get a big bully pulpit.

One thing that goes with the territory of playing the electoral game is that there is a gap between what the internal process has arrived at, and the message about issues the public gets. At the very least, what the public gets is far smaller, has less scope, and is covered with considerably less depth. Thats a tension we all have to deal with.

Interested Observor, you have shown yourself to be cavalier about the gap between the two: not understanding or uninterested in examining what it is that the mass of voters who do or might vote Green actually see, and especially what in prcatice is what is actually put out there.

Even this thing about the role of the Leader is an expression of that: your correcting us that the Leader being just the "chief spokesperson". That is not the reality, and it is precisely because it is not the reality that she rode so easily to win the leadership: she was obvioulsy going to raise the profile of the GPC.

The fact that you and possibly a clear majority of members/supporters think she 'should' be only the chief spokesperson is immaterial. It is not the case, and the GPC membership chose her with that clear understanding. And May has only amplified what existed already.

Same goes for your complete disregard of looking at what the GPC talks about when it actually has the ear/eyes of the masses. Sure that's limited. Even more than for the NDP. But limited as the 'resource' is, it does exist. And there is a lot to be learned in what issues are actually put forth in those valuable windows.

I agree with you that the GPC is not going to dissapear. Because there are a lot of core supporters like yourself who will be satisfied as long as they can put out huge and reaching vision statements, and as long as the brain trust puts out "news releases" written to keep the choir happy... while the Leader takes a far narrower and feel-good fluff message to the media when the latter are opening the doors to the eyes and ears of the masses.

For the forseeable future there will be enough of you to keep the institutional structure of the GPC alive. But that isn't saying much.

Machjo

I'm not a Green Party supporter per se, but I'll have a go at it anyway.

 

Last federal election, I had the following options: A Liberal, a Conservative, a Green and an NDP-er.

The Liberal: I'd found minimal information on him on the internet, but did find his contact information. I was lucky enough to meet him at his campaign office, asked him a few questions on various issues, and found that he nearly always went to the Liberal policy manual to read the answers to me (as if I could not have read them myself online). This just told me that he'd be the ultimate party sheep, unable to think for himself and vote his own conscience. Add to that that he had to take swipes at the Conservative candidate just for good measure. Not much substance there, and this from a former teacher!

The Conservative: Most of what I'd found of his on the internet was just anti-Liberal attack adds. I did visit his campaign office, but he wasn't there. I wrote a few questions on paper and some professor phoned me back a few days later with the answers. Now while I can appreciate that the candidate might be busy, I was surprised to find that the professor was not telling me the candidate's ideas, but his own instead. Clearly, this candidate couldn't think for himself, or alternatively was incompetent in selecting competetent staff. He won the election, and his website is still full of anti-Liberal propaganda.

The Green Candidate: He had his own webpage on the Green Party website, expressing his own ideas on various issues. It also included his contact information, both phone and e-mail (though I would consider phone more optional since he does have a right to his privacy). He'd invited me to his home one evening, and though he didn't have much time for me since they were having a Green party meeting, I was invited to listen in. For the most part, it was boring since they were just discussing campaign strategy, not actual policy. By the end, though, I did have a chance to ask various questions, and to my pleasant surprise, he would give his own answers, not just quote from some party manual. He didn't always know the answer, but was not afraid to admit to it and would not pretend to know the answer. He also asked for sources so he could look it up for himself; and, even if he couldn't give a detailed account of his ideas on these topics, he was able to at least discuss the underlying principles that would guide his policies on the issues, on which the details would have to be founded. This indicated a potential MP capable of critical thinking, cautious in answering, and desiring to find the answers to questions he didn't know. It also showed honesty in admitting to knowledge gaps (after all, not everyone can know everything). He seemed welcoming of new ideas and easily accessible by e-mail.

The NDP candidate: I found her phone number on line, but not her e-mail address, and she had no web-site, let alone webpage. I'd called her home once, but was not willing to waste my time playing phone tag with her if she wasn't there (and I don't feel very comfortable calling people I don't know since I consider phoning a private residence I don't know to be more intrusive than e-mail). Had she been an independent candidate, I might have been more lenient there and tried more often, recognizing potential budgetting problems. But as a member of a major party, I figured she could at leat have access to a computer and internet so that we could e-mail her our questions. I did see her at the all-candidates' meeting though, and she was the only one to use public transit and the only one to bring her own mug to the meeting to save the environment. That certainly showed she walked the talk. But again, owing to the meeting being packed, I had no chance to ask her any questions. I certainly would not want my MP to be so unaccessible to the community in a democratic system, and so couldn't vote for her.

So what would my advice to the NDP be?

1. Provide each candidate with at least a webpage on the NDP website or, bettter yet, provide them each with their own website, allowing the candidate to express his own ideas on issues. After all, even if we read the entire NDP party platform on-line, we may still want to read from the horse's hoofs, from the candidate himself, to see if his own ideas do indeed agree with the party platform, or if he may add to issues the platform doesn't cover.

2. Ensure each candidate has an e-mail address. In the event that the candidate doesn't cover an issue on his website, we could then send an e-mail to the candidate to get clarification. To save his time, the candidate could then not only answer the e-mail, but address that issue on his website too, so as to save everyone time in having to ask the same questions again.

3. Ensure you have quality candidates. A candidate who can only parrot the party platform comes across as a party sheep. While this may be attractive to party members, it's a turn off for the general community. That Liberal candidate had not given me a very good impression there. Also, you want a candidate who doesn't take attacks personally and can forcus on the issue, unlike the Conservative and Liberal Candidates.

In the end, I almost voted for the Green candidate, but handed a blank ballot instead. That was a very last second decision. Now that I think back on it, perhaps I was too harsh on the Green candidate and should have voted for him anyway. However, I can say that party lawn signs, tv adds, etc. do nothing to swing my vote. in the end, even if the candidate could afford nothing more than a computer, internet access, an e-mail address and a website, that's all I'd need for him to potentially get my vote.

 

So it might also mean reconsidering election strategy too.

 

Anyway, that's just my ideas for what they're worth.

remind remind's picture

Machjo, interesting observations and insights and thank you for them. I think some are very valuable for some.

But would you not vote for a woman candidate?

Machjo

remind wrote:

Machjo, interesting observations and insights and thank you for them. I think some are very valuable for some.

But would you not vote for a woman candidate?

 

Of course I'd vote for a woman candidate, but not blindly. I do not vote for a candidate I don't know at least reasonably well. The NDP candidate had no website, let alone webpage, of her own, and no e-mail address that I could find. Why would I vote for someone I don't know?

I think it would be a mistake for the NDP to think it could get a free ride just because its candidate is a woman or a member of a visible minority. Some would vote for such a candidate on that front alone. I, however, would never vote for a candidate just because it's a woman or a member of a visible minority. There needs to substance to their character for them to get my vote.

 

Another point: I never assume that a candidate agrees with his party platform, as we all know that floor-crossing does occur on occasion. For that reason, it is important for us to know the candidate's ideas, and not just the party's. Party sheep may assume that that is a redundancy, but for those of us who are not members of this or that party, and who have no party loyalties, it's not redundant at all. In fact, since we recognize that we are in fact voting for a candidate and not a party, the candidate's ideas are in fact more important than the party's for us. So even if the party thinks it redundant, it is important for the candidate to give his ideas anyway, even if only to confirm in his own words that he does agree with the party platform, and to what degree.

Machjo

Just another point about a candidate's character:

 

I was impressed by the NDP candidate's walking the talk by taking public transit and brining her own mug. Had she had her own website and e-mail address, and used them effectively, who knows, maybe she could have gotten my vote.

We could look at Conservative Party MP Scott Reid as an example too. He's been voted one of the most charitable MPs in Parliament, and is the only vegetarian (or vegan, I'm not sure) MP in Parliament to the best of my knowledge. Now how could a meat-eating NDP candidate compete against him on an environmental platform without looking like a right hypocrite?

Layton is a good example of an MP who supposedly cycles to work too.

I do take a candidate's personal conduct into account as a sign of sincerity too.

Again, had the NDP candidate in my riding been more accessible, she might very well have gotten my vote.

Machjo

I'd like to add too that a party leader has little to no effect on my voting habits. I may dislike the leader but like my local candidate, or vice versa. That being the case, focussing less on the leader and more on the local canddiate could likely help too.

remind remind's picture

No machjo, you just ued the word "him" for your voting choice is all, so I was wondering.

I voted for a male candidate in my riding, when there was a woman for another party running, I in no way determine my votes upon male or female lines.

People determine who they vote for in variety of ways, for some a website means nothing, nor a email address, they want to see how they conduct themselves in a broader public way, ala All candidates Forums. Personally, I would never ever call a candidate's home.

Also, I would not want my candidate spouting off their personal beliefs, as opposed to party policy, if their personal views do not meet party policy, as then they are in the wrong venue.

Machjo

remind wrote:

No machjo, you just ued the word "him" for your voting choice is all, so I was wondering.

I voted for a male candidate in my riding, when there was a woman for another party running, I in no way determine my votes upon male or female lines.

People determine who they vote for in variety of ways, for some a website means nothing, nor a email address, they want to see how they conduct themselves in a broader public way, ala All candidates Forums. Personally, I would never ever call a candidate's home.

Also, I would not want my candidate spouting off their personal beliefs, as opposed to party policy, if their personal views do not meet party policy, as then they are in the wrong venue.

 

To clarify, the masculine can also default for the generic.

As for all-candidates' meetings, I see them as but one way of learning about a candidate, but by no means the only one. A person who may be shy in the public eye may in fact have great ideas that he just can't express in front of many people but has no issue putting to paper or keyboard in the privacy of his own home. Sure, shyness may be a disadvantage for a candidate, but I wouldn't take that as the sole criterium for determining the quality of a candidate.

And as for diverging from the party platform on some points, I think that's a sign of honesty. Any candidate who says he agrees 100% with everything in the party platform is either a thoughtless sheep or a liar. Each human being will have slightly different views on an issue, and I'd rather my candidate be honest with me than pretend to be something he isn't that would just raise alarm bells for me. And that may be why I was attracted to the Green candidate in our riding. He didn't necesarily diverge much from the party platform, but when he could see that I wanted to know more about certain policies, he was willing to go beyond the platform and express his ideas on the issues. That just showed him to be capable of independent critical thought, which I believe to be absolutely crucial in the governing of a nation.

Machjo

And again, on the issue of party platform, this is something party sheep and the general public will generally not see eye to eye on. Party sheep will of course expect mindless obedience from their candidates, whereas independent constituents want to vote for someone who'll voete his conscience for the good of his constituents and not blind party loyalty.

Pages

Topic locked