Whither the E-May Party?

remind, I don't want to speak for others, but that one was uncalled for too.  Did you miss that Stuart just ran for a provincial NDP nomination in Ontario, and is considering running for us federally?  He has genuinely tried to advocate for alliances between Greens and the NDP from both sides of the equation for some time.  I didn't perceive anything he said to be cheerleading.

Nope, didn't miss it at all.

Never called him a cheerleader, said he did good PR for them. And he did.

Yeah, and ... ?

scott there is no doubt that some hard line old timers in the union movement were against the practises of certain environmentalists, but by no means the majority.

People working the bush have a hard enough time staying alive with out trees being spiked.

And I had forgotten, that Clark had stated that, but I seem to remember it was in reference to the bad actions of certain environmentalists, like tree spiking.

Apparently you did NOT read the whole article FM.

Of course, as always, it's hysterically funny that Frustrated Mess says(perhaps rightly)that Canada doesn't have a left, and then supports a party that, on all major issues, is to the RIGHT of the NDP, and is guaranteed to stay that way if Elizabeth May ever actually wins a seat in parliament. 

Why would he think that pushing Canadian politics further to the right(which is what has to happen if the Greens ever gain ground, since they have no real interest in worker's rights or any meaingful concept of social justice and since they are uncompromising believers in "market values", also known as supporting permanent dominance by the rich) will help Canada get a real left?

First, you are assuming that the NDP is somehow implacably hostile to green values.  It's not.

Secondly, an economy grounded on collective, rather than individualist principles is much more likely to be reshaped on terms that will be "green".  Those driven by short-term individual self-interest, which describes all market values types, are always going to be reflexively opposed to any measures driven by the long term thinking necessary to create a green world.  People checking the daily prices at the TSE or the Dow Jones aren't going to give a damn about the next seven generations.

And the labor movement has changed.  Working people and blue collar people now get it that they need a clean environment as well as "jobs, jobs, jobs".  You're not going to see workers beating environmentalists anymore, unless the bosses have goaded them into it.

Second, if you'd want a new paradigm arise, hoping for good political fortunes for Elizabeth May, a woman hopelessly tied to the most right-wing vision of what the Green Party is about and thus tied to the old paradigm.

Ken Burch wrote:

First, you are assuming that the NDP is somehow implacably hostile to green values.  It's not.

In fact, I'm not and no where did I say they were. On the contrary it has been implied, repeatedly, that the Greens are implacably hostile to labour. That is not true either.

Quote:

Secondly, an economy grounded on collective, rather than individualist principles is much more likely to be reshaped on terms that will be "green".  Those driven by short-term individual self-interest, which describes all market values types, are always going to be reflexively opposed to any measures driven by the long term thinking necessary to create a green world.  People checking the daily prices at the TSE or the Dow Jones aren't going to give a damn about the next seven generations.

There, you see, we agree. What is required, however, is that in this regard neither the Greens nor the NDP are "advocating for an economy [based upon] collective, rather than individualist principles". So where does that leave your critique?

Quote:

And the labor movement has changed.  Working people and blue collar people now get it that they need a clean environment as well as "jobs, jobs, jobs".  You're not going to see workers beating environmentalists anymore, unless the bosses have goaded them into it.

Some of them do, not all of them. But that misses the point. They are still wholly dependent, economically, on the industrial consumer capitalist model for their material well being. They're retirment funds likely including mining interests quite happy to kill Peruvian indigenous peoples to get at the minerals beneath their feet.

Quote:

Second, if you'd want a new paradigm arise, hoping for good political fortunes for Elizabeth May, a woman hopelessly tied to the most right-wing vision of what the Green Party is about and thus tied to the old paradigm.

Well, she is no different in her right wing vision than Layton is in his. As I stated already, both found their political philosophy on reform and acquiesence to indsutrail consumer capitalism and, thus, both are tied to the old--in place paradigm . But, again, you are stressing your perception. I did not argue that May would change anything. Like Layton, she is a product and agent of the status quo.

Frustrated Mess wrote:

You have to forgive, remind. Once the NDP orange goes on, her mind plugs into the collective hive and the best you can expect is pretty much the same as you can expect from bleachers any where.

Now, when I read the comments by Stuart_Parker, I see thoughtful critiques. I don't fully agree, but at least one can recognize a questioning intellect. Compare:

Stuart_Parker:  Hopefully, the next phase is to put genuine, as opposed to token pressure on other progressives to find ways to pool our votes so we don't keep getting hosed by the forces of capitalism.

MUN Prof.: This side of the political centre the greens have shown themselves to be more in kahoots with the forces of capitalism than even the Liberals.

Uhm, yeah ...

So, Stuart_Parker, is there anyone pushing for this next phase, or is what you're expressing entirley wishful thinking?

We are in the next phase. The "party system" has changed.  From 1980 to roughly 1993 there were only three parties  the Liberal party,  the  Progressive Conservative party  and the New Democratic Party, that had seats in the House of  Commons and only those three parties would be considered capable of winning  seats . With only three parties capable of playing a role in the House of Commonds or governing ,- a "three party system". came into being that had its own dynamic.    1993 the system fractured into   five party  system  that lasted about ten years to 2004. This five party system was domianted by the Chretien/Martin Liberals.     Roughly 2004 with "unite the right " we went into  a four party system dominated by minority government  , Arguably , with the  Green share of vote and share of, election financing and /organizational resources,  we have had a 4.x party system for at least 5 years.,   It has been a fractious five years. rrecently we had a coalition of all opposition parties ready to take power.

 The game has changed the paradigm shifted.  we have an election likely to be called within a month in which the Greens and NDP and Liberals and Bloc and all progressives will have a chance to bid for government  Of tnerest to some iss what Elizabeth May and the Greens do in this next elecion and in this next phae. .Are they on their own, are they with the Liberals, are they with us?  Personally and politically  I  would welcome a rainbow coalition or a Red Green alliance. I also  think Jack is the best  to build and lead  that governing coalition.

.

I'm not sure that leapfrogging the Bloc in and of itself would give the NDP more influence, but rather the added influence would come from simply having more seats (and likely the balance of power). But I do agree there's a certain symbolism to being in third rather than fourth.

So how likely is that to happen? Let's assume the Bloc elects the same number of MPs as the current Parliament (49) and all the NDP incumbents are re-elected (both big assumptions, I will grant you). That means the NDP needs to gain another 13 seats, which would give them an even 50. It seems to me the most likely targets are St. John's South, South Shore-St. Margaret's, Dartmouth-Coal Harbour, Gatineau, Parkdale-High Park, Beaches-East York, Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar, Palliser, Kamloops-Thompson-Cariboo, Newton-North Delta, Surrey North, Vancouver Centre, Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, and Vancouver Island North. Some of these were squeakers last time (eg South Shore-St. Margaret's, Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar, St. John's South) and others will require a lot of work (Vancouver Centre, Beaches-East York, Kamloops-Thompson-Cariboo) but it seems to me that they are all potentially winnable. At the same time, however, running the table seems like a bit of a longshot.

ghoris wrote:

Parkdale-High Park,

Under Gerard Kennedy, I suspect that P-HP might take a backseat to other seat prospects.

Seems to me the "E-may party" has sold itself to those with money to invest by its defence of "the market" (which is the engine of our collective destruction), and by its campaign colouring and its ability to hide its libertarian (selfishly individualistic) working leadership from the purely emotional and politically naive following, those without a pot to pee in.

E-may, I suspect, is, like the good priest-to-be, convinced that proslytization will win the day (and perhaps, if reason doesn't do it, there awaits a better world). Come to think of it, that is probably the hope of a great many gentle, turned-off "souls".

And I believe that the party trying to give those people a pot to pee in is in the moral ascendancy - complex and righteous argument to the contrary aside.

oldgoat wrote:

Frustrated Mess wrote:

Yeah, and ... ?

 

Yeah, and stop the personal attacks Frustrated Mess, or you'll be taking a break.

There was no personal attack. If you're suggesting I can't be critical of a debating method that amounts to "my party good - that party bad" then go ahead and give me a permanent break. I am not anti-NDP, or pro-Green, but I am critical of both. And on a board such as this I enjoy vigorous debate to the same degree as I dislike mindless bleacher shouting.

If you think identifying when someone's not debating but merely engaging in partisan catcalls is a personal attack, then I won't take it personally if you decide I don't belong on this board. I know, it's just business. So you decide.

Quote:

We are in the next phase. The "party system" has changed.  From 1980 to roughly 1993 there were only three parties  the Liberal party,  the  Progressive Conservative party  and the New Democratic Party, that had seats in the House of  Commons and only those three parties would be considered capable of winning  seats . With only three parties capable of playing a role in the House of Commonds or governing ,- a "three party system". came into being that had its own dynamic.    1993 the system fractured into   five party  system  that lasted about ten years to 2004. This five party system was domianted by the Chretien/Martin Liberals.     Roughly 2004 with "unite the right " we went into  a four party system dominated by minority government  , Arguably , with the  Green share of vote and share of, election financing and /organizational resources,  we have had a 4.x party system for at least 5 years.,   It has been a fractious five years. rrecently we had a coalition of all opposition parties ready to take power.

 The game has changed the paradigm shifted.  we have an election likely to be called within a month in which the Greens and NDP and Liberals and Bloc and all progressives will have a chance to bid for government  Of tnerest to some iss what Elizabeth May and the Greens do in this next elecion and in this next phae. .Are they on their own, are they with the Liberals, are they with us?  Personally and politically  I  would welcome a rainbow coalition or a Red Green alliance. I also  think Jack is the best  to build and lead  that governing coalition.

 

In the next phase of what? How has the party system changed?

I would argue the game is the same and the paradigm remains as it was. To be certain, the Conservative pull to the right has not resulted in a oppositional counter pull to the left, but rather an entire move of the official political parties rightward. The environment, as an election issue, is less relevant than at any time in the last two decades. We just witnessed the CAW, Canada's largest trade union, get eviscerated and hardly a wimper of opposition from its political allies. Stephen Harper was just in the melting north, with methane bubbling up from lakes, and while some opposition questioned his commitment to dollars and economic investment, hardly anyone pointed out the Arctic he says he wants to save is dying and his policies are the hand holding onto the big, sharp knife. The left is more divided and ineffectual as ever. Even the Liberals recognize they can go to Alberta and become converts to the Church of the Tar Sands and it won' cost them a vote that matters. And above all else, we are still a brokerage party system.

I think you will have to offer me something more to convice me any paradigm has shifted.

But it is true, George. The last federal election demonstarted environmentalists are an entirely fractured lot without organization or serious political clout. To prove it, again, we witnessed the last provincial election in BC. Ask my frenemy remind how that went.

Futher, with Dion sold out to the wolves on his carbon tax, no political party will make carbon pricing a plank in the platform reducing climate change to a platitude buried among the grey of text. Both the Libs and the Cons know all they need to do is marginalize eco issues to talking points to neutralize it and leave the rest for the Greens and NDP to fight over.

I'm not saying the environment is not important. I am saying as a political issue it is not there and environmentalists as a political force are ineffectual and hopelessly fractured.

But when they come aboard, George, they quickly jump ship when they discover the war horses care more for party and party advantage, right or wrong (party-firsters?), than they do for earth and survival. The same affliction that keeps us firmly rooted to economy and disconnected from economy's total reliance on ecology, is what keeps us rooted to party before cause. I call it myopia.

No, I don't think they are. I think they are smart enough to recognize meaningful change is not possible through the political process. Instead, they form their own communities, engage in direct action, and eventually withdraw to where they believe they might weather the storm. Here's a glimpse of what we can expect, George: http://news.google.ca/news?q=canada%20federal%20election&oe=utf-8&rls=or...

Find the needle of meaning in the haystack of irrelevance.

Can the NDP jump over the BQ?

That depends on how badly the Conservative vote collapses.  They'll be lucky to hang on to 5 seats next time.

I think you can add Kenora, Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley, Central Nova, Halifax West, Davenport, and possibly even Hochelaga (given the BQ's goings on there!) as potential NDP pick-ups.

And how many seats will the Greens under Elizabeth May(Day!) have?

NONE!

Stay tuned!

George ... what does it read like?

David Young wrote:

When you look at the results in the Montreal ridings (check Pundit's Guide for more info) you can see that NDP support has been steadily increasing since the 2004 election:

In B.Q. ridings:

                                       2004              2008

Hochelaga                        2510  (5.5%)   6600 (14.4%)

Jeanne Le Ber                   3160  (6.9%)   7708 (15.7%)

La Pointe-de-l'Ile               1751  (3.8%)   5975 (12.9%)

Laurier-Ste. Marie              5779 (12.1%)   8209 (17.1%)

Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie  3876  (7.7%)   8522 (16.3%)

In Liberal ridings:

                                             2004                  2008

Lac Saint-Louis                        3789   (7.5%)     8105 (15.8%)

Lasalle-Emard                         1995   (4.4%)     5622 (13.2%)

Notre-Dame de Grace-Lachine   3513   (7.9%)     6641 (15.2%)

Outremont                              5382 (14.1%)   14348 (39.5%)

Westmount-Ville Marie             4795  (12.0%)    8904 (22.9%)

Jack Layton was the most popular federal leader in a recent poll of Montrealers.

I'm not saying that the NDP is going to sweep the island of Montreal in the next election, but the steady growth in support shows more and more voters that the NDP is becoming a credible alternative to the B.Q. and the Liberals.

And how many seats will the Green Party under Elizabeth May(Day!) win in Montreal?

NONE!

Stay tuned!

Yes, it is very true that the NDP has increased in support in Quebec in recent elections and that they had a breakthrough by winning the Outremont seat.

It is important to remember though that the NDP vote increased in Quebec at a time when the Liberal vote was in decline during the sponsorship scandal.  The Liberals have now reemerged as the top federalist party in Quebec with the collapse of the Conservatives.  If the Liberal vote had not recovered in Quebec, the NDP might have had a chance to emerge as an alternative, but that does not seem to be happening yet.

As Chantal Hebert said on CBC the night of October 14:

"This is not a bad night for the Liberals in Quebec.  What's happened to them is that they have turned the page on the sponsorship scandal.  They're up in the popular vote and taking seats off the Bloc.  They have also stopped the NDP from emerging in the province as an alternative to them."

That is of course not the final word on the subject, but in order for the NDP to emerge as a serious alternative in Quebec, it will need to make major inroads in Quebec in the next election.  That means keeping the Outremont seat and winning another seat.  We'll have to see if that happens.

So, debater, in the name of the greater good of the "center left", that part of the political spectrum you claim to belong to, would you be willing to call on Liberals to withdraw from the Montreal ridings where NDP support has grown strongest?  Such as Gatineau?

If you can state facts like that, which you do often, so can I.

And no polls have showed that about Ignatieff recently, as such,  it seems familiarity breeds contempt, in his case.

George Victor wrote:

 

FM:

"George ... what does it read like?"

 

FM, I'll just repeat:

 

I mean the discussion. Not ours. The other discussion.

Stuart saw a new phase: "Is to put genuine, as opposed to token pressure on other progressives to find ways to pool our votes so we don't keep getting hosed by the forces of capitalism."

I think we are in that phase right now -of pressure on "other progressives"- Greens?  BQ?  NDP?  left Liberal?  red Tory? ) to work together to change  the system. , The Liberal NDP coalition,  backed by the Bloc was a logical outcome of the 4.x  party system  we have had somcve 2--4 and 3 election where no one party can command a majority to  govern wtihout the help of others  People and pundits say  no party can form  government  why don't you work together?/. 

I think we are in that  new phase now . I feel pressure. .

Frustrated Mess wrote:

Quote:

We are in the next phase. The "party system" has changed.  ......... We have had a 4.x party system for at least 5 years.,   It has been a fractious five years. rrecently we had a coalition of all opposition parties ready to take power.

 The game has changed the paradigm shifted.

 

In the next phase of what? How has the party system changed?----

I would argue the game is the same and the paradigm remains as it was.

 

peterjcassidy wrote:

 

Stuart saw a new phase: "Is to put genuine, as opposed to token pressure on other progressives to find ways to pool our votes so we don't keep getting hosed by the forces of capitalism."

I think we are in that phase right now -of pressure on "other progressives"- Greens?  BQ?  NDP?  left Liberal?  red Tory? ) to work together to change  the system. , The Liberal NDP coalition,  backed by the Bloc was a logical outcome of the 4.x  party system  we have had somcve 2--4 and 3 election where no one party can command a majority to  govern wtihout the help of others  People and pundits say  no party can form  government  why don't you work together?/. 

I think we are in that  new phase now . I feel pressure. .

Frustrated Mess wrote:

Quote:

We are in the next phase. The "party system" has changed.  ......... We have had a 4.x party system for at least 5 years.,   It has been a fractious five years. rrecently we had a coalition of all opposition parties ready to take power.

 The game has changed the paradigm shifted.

 

In the next phase of what? How has the party system changed?----

I would argue the game is the same and the paradigm remains as it was.

 

 

We have had a 4+ Party system since Reform got its first seat. That's parties with seats in the House.