NDP/Green election alliance?

I think something more realistic would be that for seats important to the NDP (leader, and a number of others), the Greens could run a minor candidate that wouldn't pose much of a challenge. And the same in reverse. I highly suspect it's important at this point for the Greens to run in all 308 ridings, if they are fighting to be taken seriously.

You mean pranti-choice?

quote:

---

I think it's an excellent idea for the Greens and the NDP not to run candidates opposing each other in races where one party stands a chance of winning.

---

I would have supported this a few months ago. But then Elizabeth May, who is sorely disappointing, romanced neo-cons, slobbered all over Dion and attacked Layton for, off all things, trying to turn Harper's silliness into real legislation. Sorry, but no.

quote:

---

Better to have a Green MP than a Liberal one, no?

---

After slobbering all over Dion, whose environmental record amounts to nothing more than a lot of rhetorical hot air, wouldn't it the same thing?

You know, I really thought May would be different. I was even considering crossing over. Too bad.

quote:

---

You would think that environmentalists and the left would be clamouring for the opportunity to get the job done right now.

---

Having read the article, I find myself much in agreement with the sentiments expressed by the writer. It bewilders me that the left has an issue with legs and, once more, rather than run with the ball turns inward and begins the process of self-canibalization.

As a self-described environmentalist, let me say this: environmentalists are the most politically obtuse, self-defeating, disorganized, and splintered group imaginable next to the broader left. We couldn't win a one person race.

It is why the Liberal and the Conservatives will successfully co-opt the most urgent issue of our day, do nothing, and leave your children with a future as dark as any that has come before. I have no optimism.

The left, activist circles, and environmentalists are the definitive arrangers of deck chairs aboard the Titanic.

[ 04 January 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

The idea of the NDP and Greens not running in the same riding my sound interesting, but it won't work practically.

Let us not assume that members of the NDP and Greens are synonymous with each other. The people who actively support the Green Party have supported other parties besides the NDP. A few of the Greens that I have met could easily fit into the Liberal Party and Harper's Conservative Party. I can imagine that quite a few people who support the NDP first could be comfortable voting for the Liberals over the Greens.

A few years ago, there were the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance Party (CCRAP) (otherwise known as the Canadian Alliance). When the Progressive Conservative voters were asked who they would support second, they chose the Liberals over the CA.

If either the NDP or Greens were to voluntarily decline running a candidate in a riding, it is most likely that their supporters would not support the sole Green or NDP candidate, but instead support the Liberals or Conservatives.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LemonThriller:
[b]

That's not true. Elizabeth May came second in the by-election in London. If the NDP candidate's votes (who came fourth) had been given over to the May, she would have won.[/b]

---

May [b]GOT[/b] all of the NDP vote that had any interest in crossing over - look at the numbers. And she [i]still[/i] fell far short of the mark.

...and she's the only member of the whole Party with more than a snowball's chance in hell.

As I said: not a single solitary seat.

When I look at instances where a party doesn't run a candidate - for instance by-elections where a MP steps down for his leader to try to win a seat and another party decides not to run a candidate against that leader - it appears that doesn't translate into votes.

For instance in a 2000 by-election Scott Brisson stepped down so Joe Clark could run. Compared to the 1997 election Joe Clark won the exact same number votes that Scott Brisson had. The NDP and the Canadian Alliance also received about the same number of votes as the previous election. The only difference is that the strong second place number of votes that the Liberals had in 1997 just disappeared It appears as though Liberals voters for the most part just stayed home rather than vote for a non-liberal. Yes by-elections are tricky little events, but my suspicion is that a NDP/GPC alliance would not work out for either party.

Would an alliance translate to more seats? I am not sold on that. For instance would NDP voters vote Green if there was no NDP candidate? I suspect that it would depend on the candidate, but for the most part I think that it would translate into a lot of NDPers staying home, and those that do vote would be split between the Greens, Liberals, Conservatives and Bloc. Plus, the NDP would only ever agree to not run in ridings where they have no chance - so I don't see it translating into any seats at all for the Greens. In fact with the Greens only hope of winning a seat being in a tight riding where strong candidates from all the major parties are split in popularity, it is likely easier for the Greens to win a seat in a tight 4-way race then a tight 3-way race. If the Greens won't win any seats than why would they agree to an alliance?
On top of that the Greens making an official alliance with the NDP would likely push many of the Liberal and Conservative votes that they have been picking up lately back to their original parties - harming the GPC's long term growth potential. Polls seem to suggest that, although I think that most early Green converts were former NDP voters, most Green converts over the last two years or so have either been from the Conservatives or Liberals.

Would GPC voters vote NDP if their was no Green candidate? Again I think that it would not translate into a lot of votes. And it would again depend a lot on the candidate, but for the most part I think that many Greens would stay home and I think that far more Green voters would now vote Liberal before they vote NDP. I am a former NDPer, but would vote Liberal at the federal level before I would vote NDP. I am just way to peeved at the NDP for supporting Harper with the Clean Air Act - which I think will go no where and do nothing but help Harper in the next election by confusing people. Most GPC members I know have similar concerns with the NDP and their position on that issue. So if the NDP would have difficulties landing the votes of left-leaning greens, I can't imagine how many central and right-leaning green votes the NDP would get.

So my belief is that in ridings where the Greens wouldn't run their votes would do more to boost the Liberals than the NDP translating into less seats for the NDP.

Net gain in my opinion of an election alliance:
Seats for the Greens - unchanged
Seats for the NDP - fewer

I think that people make a mistake when they add the GPC and NDP polling numbers together and think that total number represents left-wing voters in Canada. (NDP voters don't view the Greens as left. Green voters are now very suspicious of the NDP on the environment) The NDP (and the Green Party) need to work hard to get converts - that is the way it always has been. I don't see the quick solution of an election alliance working out for either party.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
[QB]May [b]GOT[/b] all of the NDP vote that had any interest in crossing over - look at the numbers. And she [i]still[/i] fell far short of the mark.

---

I agree that if, through an alliance the NDP didn't run a candidate, May still likely would not have received many more votes - those NDP voters would have stayed home. Simply put why go out and vote for someone you do not support? People won't do it. Plus the LNC by-election was a special case and it should not be used as an example which would translate meaningfully in any way to the next election.

quote:

---

...and she's the only member of the whole Party with more than a snowball's chance in hell.

---

Well I think that there are a couple others who have a snowball's chance in hell. Shane Jolley, David Chernushenko and Andrew Lewis all have next to no chance of winning in the upcoming election, but surely their chances are as good as the snowball in hell. The way things are going I think that pretty soon we can change that phrase to "a snowball's chance on Christmas."

The platforms are similar in some ways, but there are still significant differences between the two that many members on either side wouldn't accept. The clincher is that the leadership of Neither party want any sort of cooperation come election day.

The BC Greens got some mileage out of "broad coalition' meetings, arising out of the VCE's successful efforts to get members of both elected municipally (which is different however in voting for full slates) but in the end Adriene Carr herself said they were 'not a party of the left' and had no interest in it. It came out later that Carr herself was vehemently opposed to Stuart Parker's earlier attempts at inter-party cooperation, calling his supporters mini-NDPers of sorts.

Anyhow, the NDP would have little to gain long term by handing them some free seats, it would just consolidate the supposed split. The Greens OTOH would probably do better to try and build up strength in a few promising ridings rather than spreading themselves out so thin -not unlike the NDP is in Quebec. That way the Green party would have something tangeable to negotiate with in any future talks -if they really Are concerned about vote splitting on the left that is.

My personal view is that they now take more votes from the once-liberal and PC supporting centre than the NDP's old base -2001 in BC was more of a fallout from the Glen Clark years- so at most they're just more competition in the crowded centre. That too may change in another generation though.

[ 04 January 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

NDP and green alliance? Why not?
The ndp is not going to winthe next election.
the greens are not going to win the next election. but if they pool their resources, the ndp might win a few extra seats and the greens might win a seat or 2.
Why dont the NDP commit to electoral reform?
If they declared that they would ONlY give their support to a party which made CONCRETE plans for a referendum (With the universally accepted anything over 50% is a binding majority) on electoral reform, what would they gain?
And actually design the system beforehand. No bullshit. A real system ready to be implimented.
First, they would get green votes! Lots of them.
but electoral reform is not just about the greens getting seats! I bet some of the millions and even some conservatives who vote election after election and ALWAYS see their candidate defeated would also vote NDP, JUST THIS ONCE.
You might be surprised how many people would vote NDP if they showed moral courage and made electoral reform central on their platform.
In BC the election in conjunction with the electoral reform referendum had the highest turnout in recent history. Electoral reform is something that the ordinary people ARE interested in. The NDP should tap in to this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LemonThriller:
[b]Granted, not all NDPers would have the Green Party as their second choice, and not all Green Party supporters would have the NDP as their second choice -- but take a look at the NDP and Green Party platforms: they're virtually IDENTICAL! It would be silly for a supporter of one party to not support the other if they had no option of voting for their first choice.

[ 04 January 2007: Message edited by: LemonThriller ][/b]

---

You know something, I don't like where your going with this. The NDP and the Green party are two fundamentally different movements. The two ought to let each other alone aside from best wishes and good luck and all of those niceties. We're just not compatible.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LemonThriller:
[b]Elizabeth May came second in the by-election in London. If the NDP candidate's votes (who came fourth) had been given over to the May, she would have won.[/b]

---

May was a parachute candidate who dropped into a riding with no connection whatsoever to that riding as a means of getting attention for herself and her party, which was probably reflected in the number of votes she received. That for me is the defining aspect that says to me that May is just another ambitious politician making whatever calculations she can in order to win. She was also an advisor to Brian Mulroney, so she's not by any stretch new to the game at all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trevormkidd:
[b]I am a former NDPer, but would vote Liberal at the federal level before I would vote NDP. I am just way to peeved at the NDP for supporting Harper with the Clean Air Act - which I think will go no where and do nothing but help Harper in the next election by confusing people.[/b]

---

So given that this climate change issue is one that needs to be dealt with 5 years ago, would you rather that the Clean Air Act simply died, thus having to resume the arduous political process of getting legislation passed on that front that would take years to pass, let alone see any effect from? Are we that immature that we have to place petty personal and partisan rivalries ahead of doing meaningful work? So what if the NDP had to work with the Conservatives, at least there is an outside chance that the NDP can get meaningful legilsation on this front now, and if it fails, at least the party did its best. You said you'd vote Liberal? Have you taken a look at this?

quote:

---

The Liberal Party under Stйphane Dion has lots of green t-shirts, but does not want to pass a climate change bill in co-operation with the other opposition parties. That would deprive them of what they expect to be their winning formula in the election expected within months.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trevormkidd:
[b]... I am a former NDPer, but would vote Liberal at the federal level before I would vote NDP. I am just way to peeved at the NDP for supporting Harper with the Clean Air Act - which I think will go no where and do nothing but help Harper in the next election by confusing people. [/b]

---

I think we see far too much of this kind of thing in Canadian politics. It's a case of politics completely divorced from policy and legislation, to the point that working to improve legislation is seen as offensive because it might somehow help the electoral chances of a party that one happens, for whatever personal or sociological reasons, to find distasteful.

This is off topic and probably should be in a new thread, however as I am leaving tomorrow for almost a week, I decided to answer the questions directed towards me here and not to start a new thread of which I would not be able to respond to anyways.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
So given that this climate change issue is one that needs to be dealt with 5 years ago, would you rather that the Clean Air Act simply died, thus having to resume the arduous political process of getting legislation passed on that front that would take years to pass, let alone see any effect from?

---

Would I have preferred to see the Clean Air Act simply die? Yes. It is completely unnecessary redundant piece of legislation. Every piece of legislation that is needed is already in place. Even the conservative media tended to criticize the act as toothless, redundant, nothing but a delaying tactic. Why should I support the alteration and (possible) passing of an unnecessary act? Altering existing legislation would be faster and likely better then creating a new act. But keeping such an all-encompassing act alive may have the purpose of convincing some Canadians that Canada (and thereby the Liberals) did not have legislation in place already. Thereby possibly making the Conservatives and NDP look like ground breakers implementing this act with all of this new bright new shiny legislation when in reality they are really just reinventing the wheel. Altering existing legislation would look less impressive, but would be about substance rather than flash.

quote:

---

Are we that immature that we have to place petty personal and partisan rivalries ahead of doing meaningful work? So what if the NDP had to work with the Conservatives, at least there is an outside chance that the NDP can get meaningful legilsation on this front now, and if it fails, at least the party did its best.

---

First of all the NDP did not "have" to work with the Conservatives, they chose to. If any other party "chose" to abandon the cooperation of the opposition parties to work with the Conservatives on the environment, every poster on this site would be going ape shit and it would be proof that other party is selling out on the environment.

Second, I don't think that the NDP is working with the Conservatives, I think that they are being used.
Simply put you can't work with a party on this file when most of their MPs and supporters don't agree that climate change is even happening, when they made it very clear in their recent fiscal update that there would be no money for the environment for the next 10+ years, when their environment minister didn't have a clue about anything environment wise (and good luck working with the incoming one).

I will give the NDP 100% of the credit if they manage to get positive alterations included in the act (enough that the Act would surpass existing legislation, including in areas where the proposed act is actually worse than existing legislation, and most importantly it must make major steps on climate change emissions reductions, not just air pollution) and get that act passed before the government falls, but I am not holding my breath.

If there are significant positive changes to the act my belief is that that the Conservatives would far rather manufacture their own downfall on another issue prior to the altered clean air act passing - and thereby killing the legislation. They will try to win a majority and if successful go back to a clean air act much closer to their original. They are trying to use the positive publicity of "working with" the NDP on the environment to confuse Canadians and improve their biggest negative with the public without actually having done anything. If that happens the NDP deserve 100% of the blame in my opinion.

quote:

---

You said you'd vote Liberal? Have you taken a look at this?

---

Yes I have read the article and I look at an opinion piece written by an NDPer just as skeptically as I would an opinion piece written by someone who is a partisian from any other party. So that author is upset that the Liberals don't want to cooperate with the other opposition parties right now. Funny how a couple months ago it was the NDP that didn't want to cooperate with the other opposition parties. Remember that? The fact that the NDP does want to cooperate right now makes me pretty suspicious that their attempt to work with the Conservatives is going no where fast.

I have no illusions about the Liberals and their record on the environment. The fact that I would vote for the Liberals before the NDP (which is pointless anyways as I will vote for the Greens) is not due to an improvement of my opinion of the Liberals, but due to my opinion of the federal NDP spiraling into the dirt.

quote:

---

Originally posted by social democrat:
[b]There is only one alliance/coalition/agreement that would save Canada from both the Harper Republicans and the Quebec Separatists. That would be between the Liberals and the NDP. I wonder how many more annual federal elections it will take for that to occur?[/b]

---

That wins as the silliest thing I've ever read here,

Choosing between Liberals and Conservatives is like choosing between caramel and butterscotch. Caramel sounds better, but they're really just the same.

If the NDP were going to form an electoral alliance with anyone, it had might as well be with the Liberals, whose policies differ very little from the Greens. The Liberals have a whole lot more votes to deliver than the Greens do. And from a social policy standpoint (hint, hint: abortion) they seem to have more in common with us.

quote:

---

Originally posted by social democrat:
[b]Times have changed, Malcolm French. Joe Clark and Brian Mulroney might have been caramel and/or butterscotch, but Stephen Harper is arsenic. His henchmen, Baird and Flaherty, were the "even-further-right" wing of the Harris right-wing Ontario government. Until the Greens win enough votes or seats to be taken seriously, they will remain irrelevent to Canada's future. Jack Layton's initiative in trying to link up the LIB/NDP/BQ to achieve stronger environmental legislation is way more relevent than fantasies involving non-existent Green Party MP's.[/b]

---

If all you look at is the Liberal rhetoric, they seem like a fine party - practically leftwing - soulmates for the NDP, really.

I prefer to look at the Liberal record.

The record where the Liberals tried to strangle medicare a birth in the 1960s.

The record where the Liberals tried to starve medicare to death in the 1990s.

The record where Chretien-Martin gave us the most rightwing federal government since Arthur Meighen's last majority in the 1920s.

The record where the Liberals did exactly NOTHING on childcare throughout 12 years of Liberal majorities. As misguided as the Tory policy is, it is still an improvement over the big fat NOTHING we got out of the Liberals.

The record where the Liberals did exactly NOTHING on the environment throughout 12 years of Liberal majorities. As inadequate as the original Tory bill is, it is still a thousand times more than the NOTHING we got out of the Liberals.

The idea that the Liberals are a progressive political party is simply delusional.

The present Conservative government is, at most, incrementally to the right of the last Liberal one on a small number of issues. Supporting the Liberals for fear of the Tories is like choosing to be hit in the head with a golf club instead of a baseball bat. Wouldn't it be a better choice to choose not being hit in the head at all?

"Times" haven't changes, "social democrat," so much as the delusions of some quislings on the left have become even less rooted in reality.

It'll be a frosty Friday in hell before I'd ever countenance any sort of electoral arrangement with ANY rightwing party, be it the Liberals or the Greens.

[ 05 January 2007: Message edited by: Malcolm French, APR ]

Malcolm illustrates one of life's great lessons. People can [i]say[/i] anything. Take your measure from what they [i]do[/i].

The Liberal record has been a very tory one, no matter how you slice it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trevormkidd:
[b]...So that author is upset that the Liberals don't want to cooperate with the other opposition parties right now. Funny how a couple months ago it was the NDP that didn't want to cooperate with the other opposition parties. Remember that? The fact that the NDP does want to cooperate right now makes me pretty suspicious that their attempt to work with the Conservatives is going no where fast...
[/b]

---

ah Trevormkidd, succumbing to the mediameme that the NDP "brought down the Liberals and now we have the Conservatives" i see.

I presume your vague reference to the "couple of months ago" is to the situation last september (2005) when Layton attempted to meet with Ujal Dosanjh, the Liberal Health Minister and a former NDP Premier, in the spirit of the spring budget "co-operation" and asked that he commit to preserving publicly funded single tier medicare in exchange for NDP support in the new session. Dosanjh refused. Then again in October Layton met with Dosanjh and Martin at 24 Sussex to suggest the same thing in a co-operative spirit, and again the Liberals sent him packing. Layton then approached the Conservatives who had already announced they had lost confidence in the Liberal govt., and asked to work on a compromise solution to an impending Christmas election (recall as well that Martin had already put a past-due date of March on his govt. anyway) and Harper agreed to give it a try and Martin rejected it and the Conservatives continued with thier non-confidence motion supported by the Bloc, and yes, the NDP, as we had obviously lost confidence as well. This has been described quite extensively Trevormkidd, and it does a disservice to your otherwise interesting comments that you continue to perpetuate this canard.

So, three examples proving that Layton and the NDP tried to co-operate with the Liberal, and one of working with the Conservatives to delay the election call till after the holidays.

This year, the NDP worked extensively in committee to make extensive and effective amendments to the Accountability Act, that would have passed as is with a compliant Liberal opposition terrified of an election without a leader in place. This was not to "support the Conservatives" nor were we being "used". This was a successful action to improve legislation that was flawed and about to be passed in it's flawed state.

Now the NDP is working quite agressively to engineer a practical
[url=http://www.ndp.ca/page/4570][i]total rewrite[/i][/url] to the Clean Air Act and have made it quite clear that they need the help of the other opposition parties to pass it, and get some immediate action on the environment, pointing out that with such co-operation, it could be passed before any election call and be implemented immediately, as opposed to the situation the referenced article points out, namely having to wait for the LIberals to come up with something, which, given their past record, is likely not much, or if the Cons win again, losing the opportuntity to strenghthen a weak bill. Dion has [url=http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/govrel/news.cfm?story=54455]grudgingly agreed[/url] to give this a go finally, but then includes silly comments like

quote:

---

As well, Dion said, in a revealing hint of his timing and his hopes: "If I'm able to become the prime minister next spring, I will not continue this fake gesture."

---

essentially admitting that no matter how good the rewrite is he will repeal it if he wins. whoah! how 'bout that for co-operation on the environment!

So, there you have it Trevormkidd. NDP trying to co-operate at many levels. The Liberals thumbing their nose at it. And the Conservatives having to "work with" the NDP. seems your analysis is seriously off the mark. And as the article points out, Layton and the NDP still get blamed for whatever the left can blame them for. Sad really.

As for the Green/NDP alliance, ha, good luck. Why would the NDP, who's policy foundation is based on good government through sound public policy and public programs to the benefit of the public, ally themselves with a party who seems to think that the private sector is the salvation of all and openly courts neo-cons, old Tory hacks, right-wing think tanks, and has a leader who is openly dissembling on the abortion issue? As it has been pointed out ad nauseum, the Greens are poaching from dissafected old PC'ers and Liberal mainly. I for one am not interested one bit in hanging out with any of those folks, and am glad they have a home to pontificate from so we know who they are. But to work in conjunction? give me a break.

We have been fighting a stupid powerplant in our Toronto-Danforth riding now for years. We have a good representation of NDPers, Greens, Liberals, and yes, even a few Conservatives who are very upset with the impending pollution of our neighbourhood and city by a Liberal scam to give money to their gas industry friends, in complete disregard for the environmentl information showing it is a major hazard. And where was Jim Harris, the former Green Leader, in whose neighbourhood this will be located. NOWHERE. Even our Green members are embarassed about this. Turns out OPG was one of Jim's big corporate speaking engagement clients. It's right on his website. Now we have May, who has enraged feminists accross the country with her abortion comments, openly campaigned with Conservative Garth Turner in LNC and gushes about what a great guy Brian Mulroney is, and is openly slagging Layton, who in conjunction with our MPP Peter Tabuns, our Councillor Paula Fletcher, and even our former MPP Marilyn Churley, is working hard to defeat this plant.

No, a Green/NDP alliance would not work, nor will it happen. An i for one will not help facillitate it.

With the defection of a Liberal to the Cons the NDP has the numbers to force the Cons to pass a good environment bill....it will be the Majority so the Libs and the Bloc cant vote it down.

Of course you are right, Farmpunk.

I was being sardonic.

I thought so, T-P. Wanted to make sure, though.

Yes, I agree. The problem with the Greens forming an alliance with the NDP, from the NDP perspective, is that they are going to be more likely to be seen as a left wing party, and then they will end up splitting the left wing vote even more. I think the Greens are more interested in drawing from the non-committed middle. It's a good idea for them to steer clear of the NDP politically, or it's just going to muddle things up.

(edited for grammar)

[ 05 January 2007: Message edited by: ForestGreen ]

I've never been under the impression that the Greens have ever targeted "the left". Or does the NDP own the enviromental high ground, and won't surrender it because its their's?

This feels like a "gotcha" zinger tactic to me (thanks for the phrase, Michelle) from NDP partisans. Look, the Greens aren't The Left!

No shit.

The Greens pose a real problem for Cons and Libs in rural ridings like mine, where the NDP isn't a factor. In fact, I would suggest the NDP promote the Greens to a certain extent (see Pearson), and maintain their voters, then come up the middle with a very strong and vocal Local economic stance.

Voter turn-out has gone up in my riding consistently.

Malcolm, did you do a survey?
I think "People vote the way they vote for a constellation of reasons. Some of them are logical, but mostly not." is inspired!
Why not just say people are dumb?
and "The Greens will not win a single seat. In the vast majority of seats, the Green vote will be a tiny fraction of the margin of victory".
Wonderful, but based on what?
If you are NDP, do you really care about if the greens win a seat or not with the alliance?
Dont you really care about all the seats you might win if the number of green votes is greater than the margin of victory?
Because, there are probably quite a few seats where the green vote is more than the margin of victory!
And now at this time, with Harper pretending to become greener, how to better take the attention off of his shitty moves than an alliance with the greens?
Brian

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malcolm French, APR:
[b]

I don't have the time it takes to point out all the holes in this idea. I'll just deal with two.

1) People don't vote according to your silly little formula. The idea of adding the votes from X and Y party together and saying "x would have won if y hadn't run" is simply too asinine for words. People don't vote that way and they don't think that way.

People vote the way they vote for a constellation of reasons. Some of them are logical, but mostly not.

People vote because of gut feelings about the candidate, because of what they thing (rightly or wrongly) is in their best interests, because they share some demographic with the candidate. The most common trait for first time voters is that they vote the way their parents vote.

Absent an NDP candidate in London, doubtless some (maybe even most) of the NDP voters would have voted Green. Probably as many would have voted Liberal. Some would even have voted Conservative. A significant chunk of them would simply have stayed home.

2) The most high profile, telegenic and media savvy Green leader EVER ran in a byelection in a riding in London, (where marketing companies test strategies because the town is so typically Canadian). It was a byelection, so a protest vote wouldn't cost a thing. And still, she didn't win.

Those were the best possible circumstances and she coldn't win.

The Greens will not win a single seat. In the vast majority of seats, the Green vote will be a tiny fraction of the margin of victory.

Electoral alliances like the one proposed here (and like the one proposed between the anti-FTA New Democrats and the pro-FTA but lie about it Liberals in 1988) are always stupid. But this one is particularly so.

It would be like the Saskatchewan Roughriders signing a player development deal with the kindergarten class at Herchmer Community School.

[ 04 January 2007: Message edited by: Malcolm French, APR ][/b]

---