Really? the greens less likely to win in that situation!
think about it. If the ndp didnt put up a candidate in a riding and asked the ndp people to vote green, do you think the greens are less likely or more likely to win?
Gawd, where is the moderator?
disqualify those 2 people.
QUICK
Or at least give them tinfoil hats for protection
quote:
Originally posted by RP.:
[b]This is an excellent point.[/b]
like i said, if the ndp made PR number 1 priority, they would get ALMOST All the green votes. whether they are disaffected cons or disaffected ndp people or simply green.
and they dont even have to form an alliance with the greens! And they WOULD be in power next time as soon as one of the big partys gave in to PR.
And one of them would give in.
quote:
Originally posted by Farmpunk:
[b]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.[/b]
Wow. Awesome thread.
I don't think the Greens are a left wing party. Not at all. Not anymore. Not even a little.
May wants to run economic policy by the Fraser Institute, an organization whose main claim to fame, correct me if I'm in error, is relentlessly banging the drum for private health care. May didn't suggest running her policy by the Board of Trade or The Canadian Manufacturer's Association or the CPA institute or Strategis, she suggested running it by an outfit which seeks to dismantle our health care system.
it's also an Institute which sells "Adam Smith" ties, after the guy who is credited, rather inaccurately, with coining the concept of the "invisible hand" of the market, y'know, the laissez-faire idea that unfettered market forces will solve all ills, very popular amongst the elitesduring those halcyon days when children worked in textile mills and Pinkertons machine-gunned striking workers.
Hey, here's a 2004 quote from Green Party President Frank De jong: ""Greens want a vigorous economy and a healthy business atmosphere. We want to green the economy by allowing the invisible green hand to get us to a green society without government micromanagement."
hmmmmmmm.....
We know Jim Harris worked for Thatcher, May worked for Mulroney, and another Green, yet unmentioned here, Peter Elgie was on Barbara McDougal's staff.
hmmmmmmmm.....
When jack was running in a very tight race against pseudo-environmentalist and WC Fields imitator Dennis Mills did the Greens run a paper candidate out of cooperation and camaraderie? NO. They ran jim Harris, who despite his lack of charisma, was the most prominent Green at the time. For what possible reason could they have done this save to hope that they could swing enough votes to keep Jack out of office?
I think the Greens, once upon a time, were the rather disorganized heirs to Petra Kelly in this country. Now, like their American cousins, they function strictly to throw seats to the Tories, and barring that, the Liberals. Would Olivia have lost the first time in Trinity without a strong Green campaign? I doubt it.
That being said, I don't buy that Jack is on the side of the angels in his current committee room maneuvers. Forgive my ignorance of Commons procedural minutae, but he could have spearheaded a bill stating that Canada will honour Kyoto in the house and forced the Tories to vote against it. i'm sorry but I think he's running out the clock hoping that the recent bump in Green support will ebb. Its probably politically expedient. In my eyes, it's also resulted in a terrible loss of credibility.
Ahem.
Here is my impression of the Greens: They are the phoniest party in Canadian politics bar none. All this talk of the Greens not being Left proves my point, and here is why:
The Greens base, the people who vote Green every election, the volunteers, the party activists, but not necessarily the party apparatchiks, tend to be young, idealist, and left. They support peace movements, critical mass movements, native rights, feminists, the entire left spectrum.
In the by-election, while it is true the Greens took some protest votes from the Cons, most of the new vote for May, which was substantial, came from the NDP.
But the Green Party doesn't want to be [i]Left[/i]. It is bad optics for all the white wine and scotch sipping conservatives who are part of the apparatchik. So the Left vote is welcome, just the Left values are not. The Left is are welcome to join the party, just so long as it remains in the kitchen and mingles with the serving staff while the important business is conducted in the living room.
The NDP for all its warts is proudly left and, consequently, it puts forward an environmental policy that is strong and non-ambivalent and doesn't compromise to appeal to [i]market[/i] sensibilities which usually translates into ineffectual.
I won't support a party that is ashamed of its own base, and I am afraid the Green Party is.
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
[b]
The NDP for all its warts is proudly left and, consequently, it puts forward an environmental policy that is strong and non-ambivalent and doesn't compromise to appeal to [i]market[/i] sensibilities [/b]
no, they just compromise to appeal to their base of support in resource based communities like BC and Sudbury and North Bay.
Sorry to post yet again, but I gotta get one last thing off my chest. A week ago I was hopeful May's election indicated a sea-change within the Greens. I thought she was being treated unfairly and unjustly. Now having read the debate and researched some of her and her buddies statements and backgrounds, I am no longer labouring under this pernicious delusion.
Despite my reservations with the NDP, I think you folks have to start agressively, publicly, and loudly attacking the Greens NOW. Not at election time: NOW. It's a dangerous gamble, but I think you (we?) have to start throwing some serious money and organizational effort at these 'environmentalists,' who, as someone else pointed out, didn't have a damn thing to say about the construction of a powerplant smack-dab in the middle of our waterfront. Gee, Jim, guess you wouldn't want to lose your place on the corporate lecture circuit, huh?
The poster above who spoke about the "activists in the kitchen" hit the nail right on the head. The Greens strength is in the "useful idiots" who, out of a genuine love and fear for our planet, are helping out a command structure within their party who, I believe, conceal disdain for environmentalists only slightly less than they evince disdain for their true enemies: Social Democrats. And by Social Democrats I don't just mean NDPers and the lapsed Marxists who love them. I mean NDPers, red Tories and anybody left in the Liberals who might actually like SOME government regulation; SOME intervention in the market to forstall monopoly and the rapacious destruction of the commonweal. Even anyone who dares to think that the government has a function within capital to regulate the game for the maximum benefit of all players, instead of standing idle while the biggest fish stamp out and destroy all nascent competition and innovation.
They don't just disapprove of state sponsored environmental regulation, they disapprove of the state itself. I think they disdain of that silly old fashioned concept which no one seems to give a toss about defending any more: DEMOCRACY. I question their commitment to that crazy idea, that silly idea, that the hoi polloi desrve even some limited, controlled and ornamental right to participate within the construction of their own society, to use the state as an instrument to apply fetters upon the "invisible green hand." After all, the people sometimes vote for crazy notions like helth care, and public auto insurance, and national day care, and universal education based on merit rather than priviledge, and environmental controls rather than trades and incentives and voluntary self-regulation.
And because of that, and by virtue of their public statements, I think the Green leadership loathe the NDP worst of all.
Start calling a spade a spade with these rascals. I think you will be amazed at how quickly people rub the sleep out of their eyes once a little daylight is cast on who the Greens like May and Elgie and Harris really are, and on what their positions are, and on what their histories are. I think you will be amazed at how quickly their support falls and your coffers and phone banks fill. Play nice-nice with them, and, to quote Louis Jordan, "Jack, you're dead."
The "activists in the kitchen" are their strength. They are also their feet of clay.
.....but I still don't think Judy ever really wrote that cheque. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 05 January 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]
[ 05 January 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]
minkepants, any chance that "you" is becoming "we"?
Advice from the sidelines can be really helpful, but democracy works better when you participate directly, rather than demand that others do the work for you.
Hey, speaking of which ... so are you writing a letter to NOW now?
I'll also note that, like other social conservatives, there is a big exception to the small-government rule for May and her party. According to the Greens, "counselling should be offered to every woman considering an abortion", etc.
More counselling than is already provided? What does this mean? Along with the party and its leader's other statements about abortion, they seem to want an increased role for the state to play in the control of women's bodies. While pretending they don't.
And we only have to look one country south to know what that means.
Gosh, it makes me feel icky and queasy and morally conflicted just thinking about it!
[ 05 January 2007: Message edited by: writer ]
I helped out Miller quite a bit, and if I'd known Case Ootes was only gonna win by 20 votes i woulda worked like hell against him.
i tried to help the NDP three different times in the last election, only to dutifully show up for phone canvass and find the doors locked on Cecil and the other offices i was sent to.
Heck, I'd only exchanged 30 words with the staff, I hadn't even had the opportunity to show them how obnoxious I was!
The dips have gotta work on volunteer management. People at campaign offices who answer the phone as if they're auditioning for the role of Eyore have got to be put to better use.
Cheers.
Oh no, not again. I get tired of hearing this talk of "coalitions" as if it is some sort of easy little marriage of convenience that would make us all happy and super successful at the polls. Get off it, folks. It ain't the way it works, and it ain't the reality we are facing.
First, and most easy to dismiss:
quote:
That would be between the Liberals and the NDP. I wonder how many more annual federal elections it will take for that to occur?
Right. Sure. Get a life. A coalition with the most dishonest scandal-plagued clique of corporate-funded opportunists in Canadian politics, who talk progressive but walk fascist (as proven by their 13-year reign of terror). Why don’t we just form a coalition with the Conservatives? If we’re willing to dump all our principles and abandon our legacy of good works, it’s pretty much the same thing. Count me out.
quote:
take a look at the NDP and Green Party platforms: they're virtually IDENTICAL!
Yep. Sure. Here's the link to the [url=http://search.ndp.ca/search/search.php?ps=10&ul=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ndp.ca&... NDP platform[/url], along with the one to the [url=http://www.greenparty.ca/platform_2006.html?&MMN_position=141:141]GP federal platform.[/url]
Sure, there are similarities in certain areas. But identical? Read them first.
The GP has clearly copied NDP ecological policies developed in the last decade, and then tried to mix those with neo-liberal-lite fiscal policies, in order to look different than anyone else (forgetting that the Liberals have been pushing, to a lesser degree this crapola in their 13 years in government, only with somewhat more "left" sounding rhetoric). It obviously doesn't work for the benefit of both people and the environment, and it's not really supposed to.
quote:
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
And this is the key point that too many people keep just glossing over. Many core activists like to think in these linear terms when looking at political trends and forces. But the fact is people may vote for a party for a whole whack of reasons, and often those reasons are not consistent with a coherent broad economic or political view.
The view the since both have similar ecological policies means that their voters would stay with them if they merged or formed a coalition, is simply superficial. Polls have shown that large percentages of people who vote for either the NDP or GP don't necessarily do so for environmental reasons. Nor do they necessarily agree with, or even seriously know about, their social and economic policies.
I hate to say this, but the sad fact of living under an undemocratic, exploitative and largely alienating economic system is that the majority of folks out there are too busy and stressed just trying to survive and have little time and resources to get politically educated to the degree most of us activists would like.
Sadly, whether we like it or not, the majority of people vote based on impression--whether someone or something appears to reflect their philosophy or sentiment, or inspires some confidence, about something--and those sentiments and philosophies are not always consistent.
quote:
You would think that environmentalists and the left would be clamouring for the opportunity to get the job done right now.
You would think so, and it's likely true, but that doesn't mean we have figured out exactly what that means and agree on it.
Most environmentalists who identify with being "left" or into serious anti-capitalist/pro-socialistic economic reform already identify with the NDP, as shown by the overwhelming NDP members and supporters who are active in or work for a wide variety of environmental groups.
But for those who don't (who I don't see as serious environmentalists), the NDP is not, and likely never will, be an option, much like working seriously with socialist or labour ecologists. And if the GP does form some kind of bloc with the NDP, many of those types will likely drift too (or back to) the Liberals or Conservatives.
quote:
May wants to run economic policy by the Fraser Institute, an organization whose main claim to fame, correct me if I'm in error, is relentlessly banging the drum for private health care.
Need we say more.
PS; as just a side point, in response to this:
quote:
it's also an Institute which sells "Adam Smith" ties, after the guy who is credited, rather inaccurately, with coining the concept of the "invisible hand" of the market, y'know, the laissez-faire idea that unfettered market forces will solve all ills, very popular amongst the elitesduring those halcyon days when children worked in textile mills and Pinkertons machine-gunned striking workers.
To be fair, if Adam Smith was to rise from his grave at Canongate Churchyard, Royal Mile, Edinburgh, Scotland, and take a look at what the filth at the Fraser Institute and similar ilk are pushing in his name, he would likely instantly vomit.
And for a bit of extra info, those halcyon days are still very much the norm in most parts of the world and, sadly, are slowly making a come-back here.
quote:
Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]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
[/b]
Actually, I didn't have to do a survey. Lots of people have done lots of surveys, and there are people who do intensive and extensive analysis after each election.
People vote the way they vote for a variety of reasons. Some people will vote for "the best candidate" regardless of party. Some will be staunchly loyal in their voting pattern despite a huge ideological gulf between what they believe and what their party believes. Some will make their decision based on decades or even generations old baggage. Some will even vote a certain way because of sheer bloody mindedness.
I knew one man, for example, who explained his switch from the NDP to the Conservatives on the grounds that the NDP wasn't left wing enough.
In the 1962 federal election, my Liberal grandfather went to the polls to vote Conservative against Tommy Douglas because that was the deal the right wing parties had made. When he got to the polls, he still voted against Douglas, but he voted Liberal regardless of the deal.
We see all sorts of example of voters voting against their own interests - right wing candidates elected from poor ridings.
What is arrogant is assuming that people are sheep who will vote how they are told to vote by political elites. And this entire stupid idea of electoral alliances is precisely that - an attempt by self-appointed (not to mention both arrogant and stupid) elites to lead voters around by the nose.
I can tell you right now that if such an agreement were struck and I was told to vote Green or Liberal in the absence of an NDP candidate, I'd quickly be telling the elites to go to hell because I have no intention of supporting rightwing candidates for office, regardless of what pretty lies they tell.
This folishness about electoral alliances and strategic voting (two sides of the same counterfit coin) are put forward by two types of people:
a) those who know two-thirds of four-fifths of bugger all about politics and
b) Liberal operatives and stooges trying to destroy the NDP.
Some of this discussion may be academic, because Elizabeth May has said that she plans to run Green candidates in all 308 ridings next time.
Tonight's episode of The National ran a clip from a longer interview to run this weekend on [url=http://www.cbc.ca/mansbridge/]Mansbridge's show[/url].
In the aired segment, May said she was 'open' to discussing anything with other political leaders, including Layton, Harper, Duceppe and Dion, but she also said that profound democratic principles underlie her view that Canadians should have the opportunity to vote Green in all 308 ridings.
I guess we'll have to see the whole interview this weekend, but the aired segment left me with the impression that May was not interested in any kind of electoral cooperation or coalition.
My name is Ken Summers and I wrote the article this thread was launched from.
In the article I was pointing out that Jack Layton gets blamed by both environmentalists and 'general lefties' for being concerned only with the NDPs narrow and near term electoral fortunes- at the expense of [unspecified] possibilities for 'getting something done' with the Greens or with the Liberals.
I pointed out that Elizabeth May is 'guilty' of the same 'charges' of not putting the cause ahead of electoral gain: that people just [i]assume[/i] she would like an arrangement with the NDP for each party not running a candidate in selected ridings.
She has never said such a thing, and it would not be in the overall interests of the Green Party.
In a way, I was just asking for 'equal negative time' for Elizabeth and the Green Party.
In this thread I got that and a lot more.
A number of you would enthusiastically agree that an arrangement with the NDP is not in the interests of the Green Party- because the Greens are a bunch of right wingers in sheep suits.
I don't buy that, at all.
The Greens are unlikely to get into an arrangement with the NDP for the simple reason that they are competing electoral parties. As such, the Greens have to distinguish themselves: in an overall sense, and specfically in relation to the NDP.
While it would be advantageous for Elizabeth May and a few other Greens to run without an NDP candidate in the riding, the larger cost would be far too great.
Two big costs to the national message that is the first priority. One cost is that the NDP and Greens are interchangeable. If so, why should people vote Green? Second cost is to swing voters who would not consider voting NDP: for them the arrangement would reflect poorly on them choosing to vote Green.
While there is a grain of truth in each of the specific criticisms about the greens made in this thread, they are way overboard.
I give Elizabeth May and the Greens as a whole way more credit. I just wouldn't vote for them. Big deal.
This moralistic colouring of politicians that don't meet ones approval is a product of infantile leftism.
They are hopelessly tainted by some stain they can't wash out... be that right wing orientation, obsession with pandering to voters (and the wrong ones to boot), or dumping on Trekkies.
Either they are all inherently and fatally flawed (and we should stick to protests in the streets); or maybe one of them is worthy of being not totally panned (if so we make sure to shit on the rest even more).
It happens in this thread that the strongest expression of this infantile analysis has been directed at the Greens. It is more often directed at the NDP- if not everywhere- but it makes no difference.
The slicker and far more pernicious form of infantile analysis is what we get from the Jim Laxers [Dec 19 Globe] and Murray Dobbins [posted Rabble Dec 30]
The title of Dobbins column is "Vote NDP to Keep Liberals Honest"- but it reads to me as a turgid rehash of Laxer's more straightforward piece.
It would be more aptly titled "Vote NDP, but A, but C, but X getting to Q, Vote Liberal"
Unlike many, I don't think the Vote Liberal is really intentional. But what matters is that is the outcome. As has been said more than once in this thread, complex arguments about how to vote don't work.
And it's not because voters are 'simple', its because they aren't stupid. If you say "Vote NDP to Keep the Liberals Honest" then you want the Liberals to govern. So whoever you think might be best in an ideal world, vote for the Liberals.
Period.
The rest of the contorted logic by the Laxers and Dobbins is just the mutterings of the chattering classes.
Albeit more polished, these mutterings are an expression of the same Canadian left proclivity for infantile analysis.
Jim Laxer in particular should know better, that he doesn't is testimony to how pernicious this is.
Laxer, and Dobbin among many others, are so sure that Jack Layton is obsessed with making deals with other parties so the NDP will get more seats in the next election that:
* it doesn't matter how many times Layton says he's not interested in propping up the Conservatives for token gestures to action on climate change. The skepticism would be understandable except...
* Layton says repeatedly that he wants a Lib/NDP/BQ total rewrite of the legislation that would pass in SPITE of the Harper government. A goal not worthy of note by our esteemed critics...
* Liberal Environment Critic Godfrey says repeatedly that the Liberals do not WANT to pass an Opposition bill. I guess reading in alleged motives for Jack Layton's actions is supposed to be more relevant than commenting on what the Liberals SAY.
As I said in the article- that's a smoking gun the Liberals are holding. And what do the Laxers and Dobbins say: "Jack Layton should be working more with the Liberals to bring down the Harper government."
Excuse me.
Jack Layton bends over backwards to try to get an opposition bill passed- a bill that he knows, especially with Dion as Leader- the Liberals will take primary credit for... and he knows they will largely succeed in getting that credit.
But that isn't good enough for the Liberals. Because they will fare better in the next election with NO bill having short and long term Kyoto targets.
Does Dion face criticism for putting party electoral interests ahead of citizens wishes?
No he doesn't. Jack Layton gets the blame for that.
It's really quite stunning.
===================
But enough of being stunned. It's not too late to jump and down and shame the Liberals into joining the effort to rwrite a completely revamped act and get it passed into law.
Somebody not far back in this thread aggreed that we are passing up an opportunity to get something done NOW. But obviously thought I was talking generally, and wondered how.
I's very simple. Staring us right in the face. As Rick Smith of Environmental Defense said yesterday on CBC The Current, "political moments like this do not come often".
We have a minority parliament with all the horse trading possibilities that brings, we have legislation in the process that can end up anywhere; and we have an election within months and an electorate keen to see progress on climate change action.
Bingo.
I want to start a new thread. The NDP/Green thing is a sideshow really. I say that even though the Greens stand to deprive the NDP of a number of seats, which matters to me. But it's still a sideshow.
Enough of the green scarves. Let's smoke out Dion.
I'm not sure I know how to start a thread, if I fail maybe someone else will.
Thread title:
Forcing Dion into climate change ACTION
I did manage to launch that new thread.
Come on in.
Hey, perfect timing, buddy. I was just on my way to take a nap when i came across some prime quotes from the Greens pals over at the Fraser Institute:
21 July, 2003
"Climate change activists are exaggerating the certainty in the linkage between human action and climate change and advocating policies that offer no environmental gain, but a lot of economic pain. These prescriptions are likely to deprive society of the economic productivity it needs to protect environmental quality."
Source: Fraser Institute Press Release, 7/21/03
10 March, 2004
"A worst-case scenario report, long-buried in the bowels of the Pentagon, has been dusted off by global warming enthusiasts in a last-ditch effort to persuade the United States to repent and sign the costly Kyoto Treaty. ...The Schwartz-Randall climate report, indeed, is a purely speculative exercise in readiness planning for extreme climate changes of the sort seen in reconstructions of ancient temperatures. Many scientists saw the hyping of the Pentagon report as an eleventh-hour gesture by die-hard environmentalists to salvage the sinking Kyoto Treaty on climate change, which already has been rejected by the United States and Australia and is about to suffer the same fate in Russia."
Source: "Climate Alarmists Misrepresent Pentagon Report" 3/10/04
[url=http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=107]http://www.exxo...
Now what kind of environmental party would want to have their economic platform vetted by an organization that says such things?
A party that's full of the milk of human kindness? Full of the love of all living things? Or full of something else?
But the Fraser Institute wouldn't have an axe to grind, would they?
"Fraser Institute has received $120,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
2003
$60,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Climate Change
Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Corporate Giving Report
2004
$60,000 Exxon Corporation
Climate Change
Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004"
IBID
But I'm sorry, Perhaps you think I'm engaging in "Infantile analysis" again. I beg to differ. My opinion may very well be infantile, but my analysis, backed by direct quotes and statistics from a variety of sources within the party, and amongst its pals at the Fraser Institute, and from the website of their masters at the largest petroleum company on our toasty planet, is at at least the Grade six level.
How mature is the use of name-calling like "infantile leftism" anyway? Please, sir, it is with heavy heart that I face the spectre of having to call dirty shame-shame.
Maybe you want to start a new thread to foster peace love and grooviness.
Or maybe its because people have called out the Greens for who they really are:
"a bunch of right wingers in sheep suits."
[ 06 January 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]
I'm in for the peace, love, and grooviness, man. Positive energy is what we need. Shine your crystals and then everyone after me: [i]Everything is beautiful ... [/i]
OK, can anyone give me a link to somewhere where May has said she wants to use economic policy from the Fraser Institute?
What she said, essentially, is that she wants right wing agit-prop agenicies to vette and approve the Green Party platform:
quote:
The Greens intend to have an economic platform ready for the next federal campaign _ one that would be open to scrutiny by two well-known economic institutes."I want to have it costed and open it up to the Fraser Institute or the C.D. Howe Institute and have them read it and say, `Well, whatever you say about the Green Party, this is a solid economic program that is fiscally responsible.'''
[url=http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060901/Green_Party...
You will notice she has no concerns about the approval of the centre for policy alternatives.
She's a neo-con.
Is this any different from "look we have a Bay Street economist running in St. Paul's"? In both cases they seem to be people trying to shake the image of the fiscally irresponsible lefty.
I think what May is doing goes beyond that. She isn't merely claiming "fiscal responsibilty" (and in fairness, the media driven perception would never stand up to scrutiny) but she is saying she wants the Green platform to receive a stamp of approval from organizations that are ideologically dogmatic and opposed to government support for health care, income supplements, or even the taxes necessary to implement and promote good ecological health and stewardship.
This is just one more example of how the Green Party is happy to have young, left idealists pounding the pavement and knocking on doors, they are not welcome inside the Green tent except to carry trays and serve cocktails until the end of the evening when their bags will be inspected before they are released to continue fending for themselves in a Green Party version a dog-eat-dog world.
[ 06 January 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Palmerston:
[b]Is this any different from "look we have a Bay Street economist running in St. Paul's"? In both cases they seem to be people trying to shake the image of the fiscally irresponsible lefty.[/b]
To reiterate, she didn't suggest having her economic platform examined by Ernst and Young or KPMG. She didn't suggest having it scrutinized by a panel of economics professors. She didn't suggest fed exing it to the editors of the business sections of the nations major dailies.
She wanted to present it to an organization which accepts 100s of thousands of dollars from petrochemical giants in exchange for their undying fealty. She presanted it to an organization whitch has spent the last several decades trying to apply as much political pressure as possible to have our public health system gutted and privatized; and to another organization working just as hard to have the entirity of public services privatized.
And she said it within a week of winning the leadership. Interesting priority for your heroine: adding legitimacy to an outfit which denies global warming. Occam's razor is increasingly telling me she's not somone who is arookie or clumsy or dim. It's telling me she's someone who lies as a default position, because its easier, constantly, with relish and smirking contempt.
She's not a lefty. She's a snake in the grass. She learned from Brian well.
[ 06 January 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]
As many of you know, I was in London-North-Centre for the by-election, and for what it's worth, I tend to think that the reason as to why the NDP did so poorly and the Greens did so well has a lot more to do with the NDP's own internal problems than anything else. For the London-North-Centre riding association, the last by-election was basically a lesson in how NOT to run an election. We made so many mistakes and had so many internal problems that it's to wonder why anyone was interested in voting for us...
I mean, I'm not a complete asshole, I think the Greens actually ran a decent campaign, and I think they deserved their second place finish...
But at the end of it all, I don't buy what they were selling. Good on them though for making it look so good though...
I couldn't agree more about the disorganization, if my very limited experience in Toronto is any reflection on London. As i stated above, you folks have a long way to go in your volunteer management: Make sure people show up to meet them. Tell them when a meeting or work night is cancelled. And get some goddam enthusiasm in your voice every time you pick up the phone. You're in the persuasion business, people. If you can't hack that then plant signs, cross reference phone numbers to adresses, stuff mailboxes......all stuff where people don't have to bug you and vice-versa.
Josh: If you were in London, what were the specific organizational problems, and what actions were you able to undertake, if any, to try and allieviate and correct this organizational situation?
[ 06 January 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]
quote:
Elizabeth May is a feminist with socially progressive views
quote:
her two-timing stance on abortion
Does not compute.
[ 06 January 2007: Message edited by: montrealais ]
Where is that quote from? I don't think its from this page. My search bar isn't matching it on here. Is it from this site? Could you provide a citation? Are both quotes from the same poster?
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
[b]..what May is doing goes beyond that. She isn't merely claiming "fiscal responsibilty"...she is saying she wants the Green platform to receive a stamp of approval from organizations that are ideologically dogmatic and opposed to government support for health care, income supplements, or even the taxes necessary to implement and promote good ecological health and stewardship.This is just one more example of how the Green Party is happy to have young, left idealists pounding the pavement and knocking on doors, they are not welcome inside the Green tent except to carry trays and serve cocktails...in a Green Party version a dog-eat-dog world.[/b]
Actually, what she is doing by giving their platform to the Howe and Fraser Institutes is giving their stance on the environment credence.
She is a neo-con, she is not a feminist, and she is NOT an environmentalist. Nor is she a rookie, a clumsy/sloppy thinker and speake. And really what were the people thinking who used that to describe her words in order to excuse her actions? What is she doing as a leader of a national party if she is those things? And why should people vote for her then either? They were obviously just May apologists/propagandists, or the extremely deluded young environmentalists, trying to make it all go away.
May is a liar and a fraud. It is very hard for some, I know, to realize they have made a mistake and have wasted 1000 of hours of volunteer hours. Hopefully they will realize they should not compound their error and waste even more hours and their ethics on someone like May who does not deserve the sacrifice of one's ethics and time.
If the NDP wanted a coalition with the Green Party, I would NEVER vote for, or assist, the NDP in anyway. The Green Party exist to simply try and split the left vote and nothing more.
But thankfully, I know no way are the NDP going to do any coalition with the Greens. And even better is the fact the Greens are sinking into the Blue in a very public way.
quote:
Originally posted by montrealais:
[b]Does not compute.
[ 06 January 2007: Message edited by: montrealais ][/b]
They were from me. What I was trying to say was that May was trying to cater to her socially conservative crowd, telling them she doesn't really like abortions, candy-coating the fact that she won't work to ban them. I think almost all politicians do that depending on the crowd they're talking to...but, I think the posters here have convinced me of how right wing the Green Party is -- despite how socially/fiscally progressive their policy is on their website.
quote:
Originally posted by LemonThriller:
[b] What I was trying to say was that May was trying to cater to her socially conservative crowd, telling them she doesn't really like abortions, candy-coating the fact that she won't work to ban them.[/b]
Oh, I think you have that wrong, May was telling them she would be open to dialogue on abortions and that she was against them and even why she was against them. That is not trying to sugar coat she would not be working to ban them. If anything she was trying to sugar coat her pro-life stance so her progressives followers would not get what she was saying. Or perhaps thinking they could be talked out of perceiving what she said cause she is such a rookie and sloppy worder ya know..
The religious right has their own meaning to phrases/words that others who do not know would not talk them as strong or very negative commentary. When in truth they are. May uses that phaseology to her fullest potential it seems.
quote:
[b]I think almost all politicians do that depending on the crowd they're talking to[/b]
You will not get a progressive politician up there saying what May said, ever!
quote:
[b]...but, I think the posters here have convinced me of how right wing the Green Party is -- despite how socially/fiscally progressive their policy is on their website.[/b]
You think?
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Palmerston:
[b]Is this any different from "look we have a Bay Street economist running in St. Paul's"? In both cases they seem to be people trying to shake the image of the fiscally irresponsible lefty.[/b]
[mild irony] When the NDP does it, it's ok.
When the Greens do it, it's bad.
What's so difficult to figure about that?[/mild irony]
I'm thinking of all the posts during last year's election saying how the NDP had to avoid left-sounding economic positions for fear of being blasted in MSM editorial pages. Same with social issues (crime, age of consent, etc.).
I'm one of those people who believe that right-wing economic platforms, and conservative social platforms, are just plain wrong, whether they're proposed by Greens, NDP, Conservatives, Bloc, or Liberals.
I suspect you and I agree about that, LP.
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
I'm thinking of all the posts during last year's election saying how the NDP had to avoid left-sounding economic positions for fear of being blasted in MSM editorial pages.[/QB]
Hear hear. Sorry if i didn't catch your drift LP. Now I'm thinking way back to that moment in the 80s, not long before an election, when the Star published a headling story showing the party stood WAY ahead (54% I recall?) in the national polls and in easy reach of taking power, even of a majority. Almost immediately afterwards, Ed Broadbent and the party started chucking left policy off the side like ballast off a blimp, like getting Canada out of NATO/ NORAD and nationalization. (If any party people remember the moment I'm talking about I'd like a link with stats, poll numbers, etc.)
The ironic thing was, the more policy Ed chucked, the lower his ratings went. He still wound up with a record amount of seats but was left without a breakthrough and a significant amount of his, and the party's, integrity. Now maybe the reason why the numbers went down was just because the party had been subject to relentless attack by the right media (and some ominous comments from the White House) once they seemed to have power within reach. Or, as I felt at the time, it was because a lot of Canadians adored Ed and were willing to risk giving the party a shot [i]with[/i] their wacky principals, and once he started chucking them, they came to think "oh... he's full of shit, just like the Tories and the Grits"
[ 07 January 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]
quote:
I'm thinking of all the posts during last year's election saying how the NDP had to avoid left-sounding economic positions for fear of being blasted in MSM editorial pages. Same with social issues (crime, age of consent, etc.).
I remember being at a Green Party function and asking some Green members why they don't speak the truth to the electorate with regard to the state of the crisis of the natural environment. They said because the truth would scare votes away. Some have made the same basic arguments on these pages over the past few years.
I disagree with that and I disagree with the NDP couching its economic policy in vague words and phrases. But I abandoned neither because of that.
What May is doing, and try to pay attention as this is important, is she is saying she will make Green Party platform subject to approval of ideological neo-con vetting.
That is far different than couching of language or the scripting of talking points. That is handing over policy and direction to your ideological opponents whether it be economic or enviroment. It is akin to the Greens having Exxon vette their climate change policy (and for all I know that is their intention). It is a complete and utter sell out. Remind is correct. May is a neo-con pretending to be an environmentalist.
And sadly, the Greens offer no defence other than "well, the NDP once did something aalmost like that." Oh, well, that makes it okay then.
[ 07 January 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]
Interesting comments from Elizabeth May on CTV's Question Period today. May was a little concerned about a possible Con/NDP alliance, and referred to Harpoon's end of the year speech where he mentioned the NDP was the party most agreeable to working with the Cons. On another topic, Allan Gregg and Gath Turner agreed the Cons do not have any new environmental policy forthcoming - that John Baird has been appointed simply to push the Con environmental policy, such as it is, forward, and that he's pit bullish enough to do it. That's all on today's QP.
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...but, I think the posters here have convinced me of how right wing the Green Party is -- despite how socially/fiscally progressive their policy is on their website.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------You think?[/b]
ummm...? A little tendency to be asore winner there?
client:
gee, remind, your presentation has convinced me that your competitor's product is inferior, and that, indeed, you do sell the superior widget. I'm ready to purchase.
remind:
what took you so long, dumbass?
-----------------
flies with honey and all that. I admire the passion and anger with which you hold your convictions
[ 07 January 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]
quote:
Originally posted by minkepants:
[b]... Now I'm thinking way back to that moment in the 80s, not long before an election, when the Star published a headling story showing the party stood WAY ahead (54% I recall?) in the national polls and in easy reach of taking power, even of a majority. Almost immediately afterwards, Ed Broadbent and the party started chucking left policy off the side like ballast off a blimp, like getting Canada out of NATO/ NORAD and nationalization. (If any party people remember the moment I'm talking about I'd like a link with stats, poll numbers, etc.)The ironic thing was, the more policy Ed chucked, the lower his ratings went. He still wound up with a record amount of seats but was left without a breakthrough and a significant amount of his, and the party's, integrity. [/b]
I would say two things. First, the party led the polls nationally for some time, but was never at 54%. I believe its peak levels where about 40% or the high thirties.
Second, your diagnosis of how it all went askew is vastly different than mine, but that's an argument that can go on endlessly. Suffice it to say, as has been argued by myself without success in another thread, the NDP pollster at the time found that the trade issue led voters back to the Liberals, since voters saw this as an international relations issue, not an economic issue.
For the NDP to have succeeded in the 1988 campaign they would have had to low ball the trade issue, dismiss John Turner's disengenuous exaggertations about loss of sovereignty, and instead plug adjustment benefits and removal of non-trade elements that affected business ownership and resource management, and put forward instead a stubborn opposition to the GST, then called the NST, since that would have involved an essential repetition of the 1984 tax fairness theme.
Chucking the radical stuff is what is expected by the majority of voters. In sections where the NDP is at 30 percent or better, that is BC, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and I guess now NS too, you don't see the provincial sections of these parties looking for left wing causes to champion, and/or, when they do, they lose. These provincial sections will oppose privatization, but do not advocate nationalization of any further items, or even bringing back into public ownership things that were there until recently. Highway maintenance in BC is an example of the latter, privatized by Social Credit in the late 1980s, and still private after the NDP's decade in office in the 1990s.
A small example in BC has to do with Vancouver Burrard MLA Lorne Maynecourt's "Safe Streets" act. It was a private members bill that managed to pass with help from his Govt, and gave the police some additional sections under which they could charge panhandlers and petty layabouts who were lurking around ATMs or hanging out in shops ruining the atmosphere for shoppers, etc. The NDP, led on this issue largerly by Vancouver Mt Pleasant MLA Jenny Kwan, opposed it rather vociferously as a Yuppie-inspired attack on the poor and homeless. Yet a candidate for the provincial leadership, Nils Jensen of Victoria, a lawyer in the A-G's Ministry, said it appeared necessary to him to deal with certain problem characters who may indeed have mental health or addiction troubles and are undoubtedly poor, but who are at the moment causing an actual problem for others.
The result? After much nail biting Lorne Maynecourt was reelected in Vancouver Burrard, where he won by huge margins in all the newer condo towers full of Yuppie types. The NDP's diagnosis of the politics was right in a way, it's just that the treatment they applied was exactly what the opponent needed.
[ 07 January 2007: Message edited by: DavidMR ]
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
[b]They said because the truth would scare votes away.[/b]
That is the same as saying; "the electorate can't know the truth or there would be rioting in the streets and social collapse would happen." and that type of thing has always been done by those in power.
It is as much a lie and bull shit superiority complexes with the Greens, as with other electoral parties using the same type of thing to keep people ignorant of what is actually going on, as someone has to be held accountable if the public at large knew. They do not want to lose control over the masses and their political careers and nothing more.
quote:
[b]What May is doing, and try to pay attention as this is important, is she is saying she will make Green Party platform subject to approval of ideological neo-con vetting.[i]That is far different than couching of language or the scripting of talking points.[/i] That is handing over policy and direction to your ideological opponents whether it be economic or enviroment. It is akin to the Greens having Exxon vette their climate change policy (and for all I know that is their intention).[/b]
Well actually, if you think about it, it is actually fully handing over the whole Green Party to those who are supposed to be their ideological opponents; it is not just handing over policy and direction. If another organization, that is the ideological opponent of what the party is supposed to represent, has control over any party's policy and direction, it is certainly not anyone else's party but theirs.
In fact, that would mean that the Green Party is, or would be, the mouthpiece of the oil industry let's say, or the mining corps. Wouldn't that be great for the oil industry and the mining corps if they could tout the Green Party endorses their practices? And the Green Party would be because their policies and direction would come straight from those industries.
quote:
[b]the Greens offer no defence other than "well, the NDP once did something aalmost like that." Oh, well, that makes it okay then.[/b]
Lies half truths and innuendo, on the part of the Greens because they cannot defend handing their party over to those the party is supposed to be acting against. Deflect, erroneously blame others for their actions.
May = Harper only worse, as he at least is a little more honest than her. We knew what he was from the get go!
quote:
Originally posted by DavidMR:
[b]Chucking the radical stuff is what is expected by the majority of voters. [/b]
Really.
That must be why Gary Doer flag-waves for killing Taliban. Because the majority of Manitoban voters support the mission, right?
While the federal NDP can't win a federal election. So they should go with the imaginary "majority" and support the mission too?
Stop reminding me why I tore up my membership all those years ago.
A majority of Canadian voters want much, much more fundamental progressive change than any of the current parties dare to offer them.
Agreed. If Bob Rae had made auto insurance public, as he campaigned to do and as other provinces have already done, the people would have adored him. So it's not even a question of what the party does in its quest for power, its what the party does [i]with[/i] power.
Whether the party should be centrist, waffle or aspire to bring about Trot nirvana isn't the issue here. The party often fails to deliver or campaign on even [i]moderate[/i] reform, like public auto insurance.
If the party had been that wimpy under Tommy Douglas, we wouldn't have public health care.
[ 07 January 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]
quote:
Originally posted by minkepants:
[b]Hear hear. Sorry if i didn't catch your drift LP. Now I'm thinking way back to that moment in the 80s, not long before an election, when the Star published a headling story showing the party stood WAY ahead (54% I recall?) in the national polls and in easy reach of taking power, even of a majority. Almost immediately afterwards, Ed Broadbent and the party started chucking left policy off the side like ballast off a blimp, like getting Canada out of NATO/ NORAD and nationalization. (If any party people remember the moment I'm talking about I'd like a link with stats, poll numbers, etc.)
The ironic thing was, the more policy Ed chucked, the lower his ratings went. He still wound up with a record amount of seats but was left without a breakthrough and a significant amount of his, and the party's, integrity. Now maybe the reason why the numbers went down was just because the party had been subject to relentless attack by the right media (and some ominous comments from the White House) once they seemed to have power within reach. Or, as I felt at the time, it was because a lot of Canadians adored Ed and were willing to risk giving the party a shot [i]with[/i] their wacky principals, and once he started chucking them, they came to think "oh... he's full of shit, just like the Tories and the Grits"
[ 07 January 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ][/b]
Twenty year old bullshit about the NDP's big move to the right.
You can't name a single policy the NDP "ditched."
No, not even the NATO policy.
A lot of policies were rewritten, but not in order to ditch laft wing positions. That's just a lie the Liberals (and their fellow traveller pretendy leftists) like to tell you.
Let's just take the NATO policy as one example.
NDP policy had been withdrawal from NATO since 1969. The stated reason for the policy was not that multilateralism was bad, but that NATO had become a purely military alliance.
All the policy said was that Canada should withdraw from NATO. Period.
The 1987 convention resolution introduced a timeline and a process for withdrawal - which did include a list of reforms which, if adopted by NATO, would cause an NDP government to re-examine the question. Full withdrawal was scheduled for the second term of an NDP government.
Prior to 1987, federal NDP resolutions were framed in terms of what our socialist utpoia would look like when we were finished. With the prospect of a breakthrough in the late 80s, many of those policies were rewritten - not to change the ends, but the define the processes and the means. Sort of, what will our socialist utopia look five years in.
But the NDP's policy on NATO before the resolution 1987 convention was that Canada should withdraw from the Alliance. And the NDP's policy on NATO after the 1987 resolution passed was that Canada should withdraw from NATO.
Perhaps, in light of some actual facts, you'd like to withdraw a few things yourself.
Ladies and Gentlemen, what a show! Acrobatics! Sleight of hand! A big round of applause, please!
CAre to offer up some substance?
Didn't think so.
Simply stated, the facts do not support the charge that the NDP was busily jettisoning policies in the lead up to the 1988 election.
But then, facts never really were that important to you.
Sorry, Mick, didn't know you had me on a deadline. I might have posted a lot in the last 48 here, but, y'know, I have a [i]life[/i]
I [i]asked[/i] for references for my contention. I stated that this was the way I recalled things. It sure seemed to be the editorial position of a lot of commentators at the time. If I'm in error fine. But if so I was the victim of editorial spin at The Star for example. And in your own writing, after contending I was guilty of deliberate obfuscation, you then go on to concede my point: namely that the NDP WAS busy watering its policies down at this period in order to become less threatening and centrist. Oh we'll still drop out of NATO, but only in the case of a, b and c, oh and only after five years. If I'm so full of it return the favour and provide some stats, documentation and links. I was all of 18 when that occured. Are you trying to cast aspersions on everything else I've said here, all of which [i]I have[/i] provided citations for?
[ 07 January 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]
quote:
Originally posted by Malcolm French, APR:
[b]Simply stated, the facts do not support the charge that the NDP was busily jettisoning policies in the lead up to the 1988 election.[/b]
I never said they did. That was your concoction. But for other babblers who have an open mind, here are just two points.
The CCF and NDP have gone left and right - but mostly right - from 1935 on. A quick read of the [url=http://www.saskndp.com/history/manifest.html]Regina Manifesto[/url] will show how far they've come since then. And don't forget that they were able to win actual, real, honest-to-goodness elections and form the government in Saskatchewan for decades with that program in hand.
As for NATO and NORAD, the NDP's sorry history in this regard was discussed and footnoted [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=next_topic&f=1&t=005787&g... babble last summer.[/url]
[ 07 January 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]
Now getting back to the real enemy:
After receiving some spam about the Green party, I forwarded an e-mil to the young sender basically cut-and-pasting a lot of the Fraser Institute discussion here, I received a reply from another address from an Andrew James of the Greens:
"What's your problem, man? Why don't you and your union comrades wait until the election, and then focus on holding on to your own base?
If you want to spend your time letting everybody else know that Green Party are not left-wing idiots, go right ahead. Just stop spamming us. We know already."
note- I sent them, in my life, precisely 1 e-mail: this one.
And for the record, I'm not here to subvert the NDP. Sometimes policies have to be ditched because they just won't work. Sometimes they have to be ditched because they're bonkers. But sometimes,.[i]i think, in my opinion,[/i] they get ditched because people think they can turn the NDP into 'the other Liberals'. I stated several times in the offending post that I was shaky on my numbers and my history at the time. The 1987 policy revamp certainly was the subject of a lot of debate and a lot of questioning whether policy was being diluted at the time. French's posting acknowledges changes occured conguent with this time period. I would be very interested in reading the before and after passages of the platform regarding nationalization he refers to, if they can be linked. I will study the NATO stuff. Thanks for the reference.
Mick wrote:
--------------------------------------------
quote:
You hate the Tories, whose Clean Air Act, as inadequate as it is, is still a thousand times more than the Liberals did during 12 years of majority government.
-------------------------------------------
Speaking of smearing public relations cheese around, do you relly buy this? While I agree the Liberals did nothing to implement Kyoto, which is why we didn't have aprayer of hitting first targets, at least that was signed document with standing in international law. Harper, by jettisoning it in favour of a new bill, and by having that process legitimized by Layton, accomplishes his goal as soon as Jack helps him by giving his move that implicit legitimacy: he sets the clock back to zero. His goal is NO law. The longer he keeps Jack in conversation like a toy mouse, the longer he has before he has to pass [i]anything[/i]
[ 07 January 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]
quote:
Originally posted by minkepants:
[b]Agreed. If Bob Rae had made auto insurance public, as he campaigned to do and as other provinces have already done, the people would have adored him. So it's not even a question of what the party does in its quest for power, its what the party does [i]with[/i] power.
[/b]
I think this is the one major exception to the general rule that the public is not in favour of any futher government involvement in business. If auto insurance had become public in Ontario, the NDP would have received some positive support for that, provided of course, that Rae's advisors were wrong in saying there would have been a huge impact on the public debt. If Rae had added billions more to the already large deficits, the public might well have sided with Bay Street and the media in condemning the nationalization of auto insurance.
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]As for NATO and NORAD, the NDP's sorry history in this regard was discussed and footnoted [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=next_topic&f=1&t=005787&g... babble last summer.[/url]
[/b]
That debate seemed to involve yourself and about three or four others with POVs identical to yours. IOWs, there was no debate, but rather an exchange of speaking notes.
From one of those posts, I have this partial quote from MP Bill Siksay:
" ... Norad is a relic from the past, that it was something that came out of the cold war and was intended to allow the Americans access to Canadian territory to shoot down Russian bombers that might be headed this way, if there were ever any that were actually poised to do that."
I think Bill is an intelligent guy, but is he suggesting that during the 50s thru the 80s, up to the fall of the Soviet Union, that there were not in fact Russian long range strategic bombers on assignment to attack the US, and by implication, Canada? Just as the US had a SAC bomber fleet in the air at all times ready to go on nuclear bombing missions in Russia? Is he seriously suggesting that only the Americans has such nuclear armed manned bombers and that the Russians did not?
quote:
Originally posted by DavidMR:
[b]That debate seemed to involve yourself and about three or four others with POVs identical to yours. IOWs, there was no debate, but rather an exchange of speaking notes.[/b]
DavidMR, read carefully. [i]I[/i] said "discussed". [i]I[/i] never said "debate". [i]You[/i] said "debate". Then [i]you[/i] said, "there was no debate".
Now that we've cleared that up, I see that you are still justifying Canada's Cold War policy! Because the "Russians" (they were called Soviets in those days) had "long range strategic bombers on assignment to attack the US, and by implication, Canada".
Guess what, DavidMR, they still do. Just because they are nice capitalists now just like us doesn't mean we should relax our vigilance! How about a Ballistic Missile Defence arrangement with our Neighbours to the South - our allies "by implication" - so we can just safely and surgically zap those Russky jets to kingdom come!
Now where did I put that torn-up NDP card? Hmmm. Maybe I could glue the pieces together so I can tear it up again?
quote:
West Coast Greeny -I don't see it happening. I don't see it having much effect if it happened either. Greens could avoid running strong candidates where a candidate from the NDP or Liberals who is strong on the environment is in a tight contest to win a seat.
I'm more interested in Ken's other points. Why can't the three opposition parties come together to pass stronger environmental legislation?
I don’t believe there is a point to any coalition. Voters who have crossed over to the Greens would simply retreat to either their original parties of choice or choose not to vote out of frustration. The party leadership has no right to tell riding associations who to nominate or choose as a candidate. It is our right as a riding association to choose and then work for the candidate of our choice. As to WCG’s statement above referring to a liberal who is strong on the environment well I ask, what good would that do? The liberal party doesn’t care about the environment and the present system in Ottawa is for back benchers to shut up and vote as told. Both David Anderson and Dion have received kudos for being legitimately concerned about the environment and that got us no where because the party didn’t care. The liberals and conservatives believe in power for power’s sake, the divine right to rule. Nothing else.
quote:
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus -
Originally posted by Noise:
Relating the NDP and green together, especially in an election alliance, is a painful move. The best case scenario that I can see is the Greens becoming 'Green Conservatives' as a right wing vote splitter (I also see that as the greatest chance of the greens actually winning a seat).
________________________________________
Exactly. As the environmental platforms are rather similar, there's no reason for the Green Party to exist on the left except to split the vote. But as an eco-conservation party, they serve a greater purpose, allowing the politically timid to take a stand on the single issue of the environment. If the Green Party isn't primarily interested in votes from small-c conservatives and muddled middle-of-the-road liberals, they should fold up their tent - or at least admit they're just divisive spoilers.
The Green Party does attract people from across the political spectrum and I believe that the party is a greater threat to the liberals and conservatives than it is to the NDP. To this end I am baffled and upset at Elizabeth May’s unnecessary and unjust attacks on Jack Layton and the NDP followed by her sucking up to Dion.
quote:
Forest Green -- 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.
In this I agree. I see no strategic gain in attacking the NDP. It frustrates me to see Green Party members attack the NDP on social issues as the NDP history in fighting for these things historically cannot be questioned. The division is in the method. I don’t believe the NDP when they say they believe in smaller government or that their policies can be done while still balancing the budget just as NDP supporters don’t believe that the Green Party will follow through on their social agenda. That seems to be something we will never convince one another about. I believe in the end that the liberal and conservative parties are one in the same and therefore they constitute one complete enemy to the future of Canadian political progression. I believe that both the Green Party and NDP should fight for what they believe in, attack both the conservatives and liberals ferociously in the next election and let voters go where they will. The truth is that there are disillusioned progressive conservatives and disenchanted liberals who will never trust the NDP. Right or wrong this is simply the truth. Let them come to the Green Party. I believe that a Green/NDP or NDP/Green controlled government would break the many road blocks stopping the progress on all the issues involved from the environment, parliamentary reform, electoral reform, social justice right across the spectrum. I want to work to eliminate the liberal and conservative parties from having access to power. The NDP working on rewriting the clean air act is the right thing to do because that is what minority governments should do. Everyone runs around labeling each other for sake of political points. If you cooperate with the Bloq you’re labeled a separatist and traitor. If you cooperate with the conservatives you’re betraying your social agenda. What bullshit. This is one of the biggest things wrong with the system in Ottawa and why we should continue to have minority governments. That is to force the parties to finally cooperate. The problem remains that the parties are simply manipulating situations in the hope of triggering enough elections to frustrate the public into giving one of them a majority and I hope Canadians have finally decided not to fall for it. In the end it has to be realized that of all the parties presently in the parliament it is the NDP that will move the quickest to cooperative government. Green/NDP sniping at each other is a lost cause and will only serve to keep the “Consiberal” coalition in power.
quote:
N.R.KISSED -- So what are these people allegedly "non-committed" about:
the environment?
education?
employment?
healthcare?
equality?
social justice?
because these are the things "the left" are committed to, obviously the green party apart from the environment not so much.
This is actually not true although I realize you will never believe it. There are many people who are non-committed because they no longer have faith in the system. Electoral reform may be a way to bring them back (or for the first time) into the system and vote. There are many young people who simply don’t believe in the old line parties of the liberals and conservatives and see them for the liars they are. They don’t trust either party to do anything. The Green Party platform and resolutions do cover these other areas you talk about. And again the main difference is in the method of delivery not the policies themselves. The Green Party is committed to pursuing international fair trade and the renegotiation of NAFTA or its cancellation. A foreign policy based on nation building and not economic domination. It believes in public health insurance but doesn’t have the irrational disregard for private delivery. It isn’t about private delivery it is about public insurance. The Green Party is committed to the pursuit of world peace and nuclear disarmament. Peace keeping as opposed to aggressive military action. The Green Party believes in moving toward free post secondary education based on grants rather than loans. The list goes on and that is what many of us in the party are working for.
As to Elizabeth May as leader well she has her apologists just as other leaders do. There will always be people that throw themselves in front of the leader when they say something that causes controversy and try to pathetically spin it. I have my doubts about Elizabeth May as leader but this is not a reason to abandon the party and doubting a leader has never caused other party supporters in the other parties to abandon their leaders either. Anyone who tries to pass off their leaders as having 100% support from the party membership is bullshitting. So, yes it is true that Elizabeth May supports choice out of necessity with personal apprehensions. But the party membership still stood firm in passing a resolution that the party could not be used as an avenue to introduce regressive abortion laws. She should have spoken for the party and she didn’t. She will have to accept the consequences of her actions and words. Many women have chosen to either leave or reconsider the Green Party and this has to be respected. Tommy Douglas stated on public television during the national debates that he believed homosexuality to be a disease that needed to be treated psychiatrically. This is the reason he, and as he states, the NDP, as a party supported decriminalization in the omnibus bill brought forward by Trudeau. [url=http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-538-2674/politics_economy/omnibus/clip3]... At the 6:10 mark of the debate. People didn’t abandon the party even though Douglas lost his own seat in the election. They stayed in order to progress the party itself.
the Greens are like a dog. They kick a little greenery over their business and think no one will notice what's underneath.
hey! Congratulations on that Tommy Douglas quote. A dumb quote from a guy who was 65 years old from 39 years ago. Bravo! Got anything good from John Joseph Caldwell Abbott's administration?
Notice you transferred the discussion back to abortion, thereby completely avoiding what has been the main thrust of this thread
-that your platform is neo-conservative in construction
-that your leadership make constant statements to this effect
-that you ally yourselves with anti-environmental organizations such as the Fraser Institute, who are also neo-cons
-that your leadership have tory backgrounds
-that you are a deliberately deceptive front group for an anti-left and, moreover, an anti-environmental agenda
nice comment about health care and how a fear of private delivery is "irrational." No explanation of why it's irrational. It just is. Why, y'know, it just means that if a clinic can pay its bills by allowing a client who can afford to jump the queue, they do so. After all the Americans do it that way, and they're our pals! You get a total right to free healthcare if you're homeless and penniless, just if you happen to have any assets, you give them to the doctor when you leave, such as your house and pension and car.
I saw a US couple on TV the other day, who, because of a prior condition of the hubby couldn't get any healthcare. The woman had no problems herself, but when they had a baby at the hospital (without complications for mom or baby) they got to pay over 100,000$ for a 24 hour trip to the delivery ward. Now doctors do well, but how much of that money went to him and how much went to profit for the hospital and its insurance company? And that's what we're really talking about with private delivery: state subsidization of corporations, and the concomitant increase in expenditures per capita on healthcare as we have to pay off insurance companies, HMOs and the corporations who own them and seek to maximize profit, paying collections agencies, accountants, lawyers, sales people.......
I like the fact that you listed an empty and meaningless string of platitudes with no detail whatsoever. Could have been a speech by Bush or Harper. "We believe in world peace. We love the Earth. Pudding is delicious. ExxonMobilBPShell is working on energy alternatives, for all of us, because we love treees and puppies. It's a start."
[ 08 January 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]
Layton was on CBC Newsworld this morning being interviewed by Heather Hiscox, and reminded her that the NDP voted non-confidence in the Cons three times: on the budget, softwood lumber, and extending the "mission" to Afganistan. Regarding the balance of power situation, he said the NDP will work on an issue-by-issue basis, not in any formal alliance with the Cons, but hopes all three opposition parties can work together to get the Cons to shift course, and certainly on the environment. He reminded listeners that the environment is the number one issue for Canadians, that the annual 'billion dollar plus' subsidies for big oil and gas have to stop, and that money instead invested elsewhere (I forget exactly where he suggested the money go). Good interview, and Jack looks terrific.
[ 08 January 2007: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]
Long thread!
