blank
Issues Pages:
Ontario Greens Reveal True Intent
Fri, 2010-03-05 12:29
#1
Ontario Greens Reveal True Intent
Fri, 2010-03-05 12:36
#2
Lou Arab
Care to elaborate?
Fri, 2010-03-05 12:39
#3
I haven't felt the need to post for a long time. However, when I saw this on facebook today I had to say something
I have been linked to a few NFU people on facebook for a long time. Some of them are also linked to Mike Schreiner, now leader of the Ontario Greens, but at one time head of LFP (where NFU members got to know him). Anyway here is a comment made by Jim Harris and to me it reveals everything negative about what the Greens have become and why I left them after being a very early Green who helped establish a number of riding associations in the early days
Congratulations, congratulations, congratulations on two absolutely amazing GPO by-elections campaigns. The GPO surpassed the NDP - winning almost 1,000 votes more in the two ridings combined! Well done!!!
When you add up the votes that Mark MacKenzie won in Ottawa West-Nepean (2,360) and the votes Neil Kudrinko won in Leeds-Grenville (2140) the GPO won 4,500 votes - SIGNIFICANTLY more than the NDP in these two by-elections (2395 + 1140 = 3535) - FANTASTIC!
While Harris's comments are technically correct, leaving out the reality of poor NDP prospecting in a ridings like those to begin with, what I find troubling is how it reveals who the real target of the Greens truly is. It isn't the Liberals, it isn't the Conservatives - it is the NDP. The only other voice that has consistently supported the environment (as flawed as they are like every other political party) Harris's crowing over surpasing the NDP reveals who he sees as the party the Greens need to take votes from. And make no mistake Harris is looming very large in the background of Schriener's GPO.
The Greens have shown themselves to actually be the enemy of progressive people who care about the environment by revealing their real target is to take away NDP votes, not increase the number of voters voting for the environment. Shame on the Greens and shame on people like me who helped get this anti-environment abomination started. Sure confirms the old saying about good intentions.
Fri, 2010-03-05 14:05
#4
remind
their real target is to take away NDP votes,
That is all they have ever been, and it is their sole reason for existence.
Fri, 2010-03-05 14:29
#5
scott
their real target is to take away NDP votes,That is all they have ever been, and it is their sole reason for existence.
Wrong. The Green party came into being because the NDP was failing as a party of the environment itself. The results of these by-elections show that voters still don't see the NDP as an environmental party. It might be productive to examine how the NDP could improve it's credibility on the environment. Better late than never.
__________________________________
One struggle, many fronts.
Fri, 2010-03-05 15:14
#6
remind
Respectfully Life, I was right there when the BC Green Party was being formed, long before the Ontario Green Party actually, and it was because they were pissed right off at the NDP and wanted to carve into their vote share to teach them a lesson. And nothing more than that really, as their environmental strategies and thinking really were no different than the environmentalists who choose to stay within the NDP and work from that established party framework.
Was also there when decisions were being made to co-opt the Green's anti-NDP agenda further by extending financial support, by BC businesses et al who wanted the NDP vote share split further. That the zealous membership refused to see the implications of this and how they were co-opted by those professing to be Green, was indicative of how little they understood by way of politics and political shenanigans. And actually this is still apparent today with Sterk's and Berman's actions giving good example.
ETD, as I just realized you were speaking only of the Ontario Greens, and I have no idea how/why you all decided to form it.
Fri, 2010-03-05 15:18
#7
Resolved by above edit
Fri, 2010-03-05 15:19
#8
As someone who was there at the begining you are both wrong. Original Greens were attracted to creating a Green party in Canada because we were disillusioned with all parties. While the NDP was the best of the group on environmental issues, they also focused a great deal on wealth distribution and social justice. So the problem wasn't their environmental policies but that they refused to focus exclusively, or near exclusively on them. Like many converts to a cause we early Greens wanted a party exclusively devoted to environmental issues to move the necessary discussion forward, with no other distractions. Again it was not the environmental policies per se, but the fact that other policies were put forward as equally important or annoying to us more important, things like human rights, health care, worker justice. For early Greens the thinking was why bother about those things when the world was burning. It is still prevelant in the thinking of many young Greens who are unable to see that those issues are all intertwined and come from the same place and the same forces that work against the environment are the same forces that try to shove down workers, farmers and remove social progress on issues like public health care. It is all intertwined.
As I have matured in my understanding of the world, I have begun to realize that the Green approach is completely wrong-headed. (and that is not an age issue as young people who get this better than some older folks) On top of that the Greens have been taken over by conservative, entrepenureal forces that see the environment as another place to make money. The Greens are now a farce and Harris has helped reveal that.
So scott and remind comments like yours are quite wide of the mark - if to either side of the target.
Edited to take out a gratutious swipe
Fri, 2010-03-05 15:24
#9
The results of these by-elections show that voters still don't see the NDP as an environmental party.
Just a few weeks ago there was a byelection in Toronto Centre. The NDP vote went from 18% to 33% while the Green vote went from 10% to 3%. In what way do you see this as meaning that voters don't see the NDP as an environmental party.
Meanwhile, while some greens keeping looking into a mirror saying "mirror, mirror on the wall who is the greenest one of all" - in morbid fear that the the mirror will say "it is the NDP dear queen" - maybe they should worry more about why about 80% of people in Leeds Grenville and Ottawa West-Nepean apperntly either don't care ablout environmental issues at all - or think that the Grits or Tories have the best policies.
Fri, 2010-03-05 17:32
#10
This asenine conspiracy talk continually goes nowhere. Where Stockholm is right is in the fact that the majority of voters in Ontario still think they can achieve something significant with the Tories and the Liberals. That's something both of our parties need to focus on. If Jim want to celebrate overtaking the NDP in certain ridings then so be it. We are constantly told that the NDP is a major party so when we finish ahead of them in certain areas then that becomes significant in the same manner as passing anyone of significance in a race. The GPO lost Toronto Centre because there wasn't any provincial work being done there after the 2007 election. The federal EDA has been working in the riding and gaining respect yet somehow the provincial side thinks this will produce an automatic spill over effect. It doesn't. One of our flaws in the Greens is that we think people will automatically vote Green in both federal and provincial elections. It's nonsense.
All due respect to Life and other early Greens as they identify themselves, isolating on one issue accomplished very little. You can't affect climate change without social justice and peace. The Global Green Charter doesn't separate these issues and no individual Green Party should either.
Fri, 2010-03-05 17:56
#11
bagkitty
Darn, I hate being in the position of defending the Greens... but here goes:
The "herogram" that is being quoted in post #2 is exactly the kind of partisan rah-rah that everybody indulges themselves in. When a seat is not winnable, one focuses on improving ranking, or improving total share of the vote... and for very understandable reasons... under our hideous winner take all voting system, it is vital to find someway of claiming some sort of forward movement to keep the volunteers (and voters, and candidates) from getting totally disillusioned and opting out of the process itself. I am pretty sure that you could find similar herograms at most provincial and federal party levels - yes they are partisan, and they are written with the clear intention of bolstering spirits.
As to why I hate being in the position of defending the Greens.... from talking to them here (in Alberta) about electricity and their steadfast refusal to even consider that public ownership might be part of the solution (without going into excessive detail, hydro-electric does not and cannot play the same role here it does in most of the country and nuclear is the not the preferred option - solar and wind can supply a great deal [and make up a larger proportion of electricity generation here than in any other province], but they are not viable 24/7... in speaking with Greens it has been pointed out that even more solar and wind energy can be harnessed, but there is a need for "stand-by" generation... and only public ownership can be counted on to handle "stand-by", that the logic of the market would see any corporate owner wanting to get the maximum (economic) value out of facilities, and continue generation for export when solar and wind are meeting local demand) - time and again, I have been told by Green representatives that the solutions must be found within the market place, that public ownership is a no go with them. So I say screw em, I prefer to talk to the environmentalists who work within the NDP.
Fri, 2010-03-05 18:09
#12
I notice that Toronto Centre was conspiciously absent from the rah-rahing. That would be because they got *completely* flattened in a riding where one would have thought they might have made an impact. I think it's much, much more to do with the NDP not really bothering in these ridings. When the NDP machine gets going, and the Greens don't even show up, the Greens get utterly hammered.
Fri, 2010-03-05 18:28
#13
Well besides the lunacy of adding votes up like that when Leeds-Grenville is one of the most right-wing ridings in Ontario and filled with lots of ex-urbanites following the dream of taking themselves off the grid out in the bush and the fact Harris's math is acutally wrong on the NDP numbers, (they are higher) it doesn't bother me too much. And I too noticed the 'strange' absence another recent by-election.
Crowing about the NDP not doing well in Leeds-Grenville is a bit like shaking your head because the Conservatives didn't sweep 90 per cent of the vote in Toronto-Centre. It is about expectations and resources.
I do find Life's story about the early involvement with the Greens very interesting and it reminds me of the history in what is now Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound and how long some there have been working to make the Greens an option. Yet some treat it like what happened there with Shane Jolley in the last provincial came out of nowhere. I was running into Greens there in the Peterson-Rae years.
Fri, 2010-03-05 21:43
#14
Except for John Tory's first byelection, have the Greens ever surpassed 10% in a provincial byelection? Once they do that and punch well ahead of the NDP, then maybe it's worth noticing a trend...
Sat, 2010-03-06 09:43
#15
"that public ownership is a no go with them."
I don't think this was the case when Joan Russow was Green Party leader.
Sat, 2010-03-06 11:46
#16
bagkitty
"that public ownership is a no go with them."
I don't think this was the case when Joan Russow was Green Party leader.
thanks... yes, the Green Party (at least the incarnations of it that I have seen) is well known for being impossible to pin down. I used the example I did (electricity generation in Alberta) precisely because the two individuals I was speaking to about it were not just GP supporters, or rank and file members, but officials sent to represent the party at a meeting with Elections Canada (and I was working with the assumption that they also had their fingers on the pulse of the Alberta Greens). I walked away with the very clear impression that the GP (or at least its Albertan incarnation) was quite willing to exclude viable options that would address very important environmental concerns if these options challenged a "free-market" bias. While I know there are GP supporters who feel very differently, my experiences with GP "officialdom" have done nothing to challenge my belief that the ANDP is a better choice for those who actually want to see environmental issues addressed without excluding potential solutions in advance.
Sat, 2010-03-06 13:16
#17
To my knowledge Joan Russow was federal leader and not the leader of the GPO or AGP. For the federal party the issues of public ownership and/or strong regulation are very important. Provincially this may be a different matter for the GPO and AGP which means they should be judged accordingly. (whether that is for better or worse than other parties) You can't judge the ONDP or ANDP by comparing them to the federal NDP under Broadbent or McDonough.
Sat, 2010-03-06 23:21
#18
A tad off-topic, but does anyone know if Frank de Jong is still gunning for leader of the GPC, if the wheels fall off May's campaign next time around? I know de Jong is no longer GPO leader, and I hear scuttlebutt that he wants the top job (such as it is). Am I horrendously out of date? I don't tend to keep my ears peeled to the Green bush telegraph (redwoods?).
Sat, 2010-03-06 23:46
#19
I have come to the realization that we will never experience true solidarity, the type of solidarity only possible with an actualized unity, until we dig down deep into our ranks and rip from ourselves root and branch the traitors, collaborators, and those we just don't like. When we've cut through the flotsam and jetsam and reached the core few, no matter how small we are, even it's finally just me, and maybe you though I question your motives, we will at last have unity, solidarity, and a common voice.
Sun, 2010-03-07 00:00
#20
You are out of date, but no more than most people. Quite the bun fight going on in the GPC around leadership, but here's the Cliff Notes version.
The GPC constitution is predicated on fixed terms for the Leader, with the next vote on that this year. For reasons that are more complex than what common sense would indicate, May wants to put that off until after the next election. The crowd around her that controls the whole organization first stalled and tried to get that changed the easy way.
Frank deJong is gunning for it, and wants it the easy way too: wait until May loses in SGI and pick up the pieces. [In which case, she probably wont even offer for another term as Leader.] So he liked the attempt to change the Constitution.
There is a vocal and not small minority of activists who want to stick to the Constitution [agreeing its inflexible and needs change, but not for the convenience of May]. And there is at least one candidate who wants to take on May this year and is organizing to do so. The Consitutional change issue has been put off the the Biannual General Metting [Convention] August in Toronto.
The membership will let May do whatever she wants. But you have to attend the BGM to vote, only activists will do that, and the large Ontario cadre is not in thrall of May.
Meanwhile, the GPC is in financial crisis... which as well as being a factor in May not getting her way already, and resulting in all their management resigning or getting fired on the heels of laying off most of the organizers, will continue to unfold and add drama and histrionics.
May's expensive campaign to win the seat in BC chugs on, burning cash until whenever the general election is and keeping her occupied.
Stay tuned.
Sun, 2010-03-07 00:43
#21
"Congratulations, congratulations, congratulations on two absolutely amazing GPO by-elections campaigns. The GPO surpassed the NDP - winning almost 1,000 votes more in the two ridings combined! Well done!!!
When you add up the votes that Mark MacKenzie won in Ottawa West-Nepean (2,360) and the votes Neil Kudrinko won in Leeds-Grenville (2140) the GPO won 4,500 votes - SIGNIFICANTLY more than the NDP in these two by-elections (2395 + 1140 = 3535) - FANTASTIC!"
I'm strongly inclined to believe all this, based on Harrises' prior record, but can you provide a direct link for this?
Sun, 2010-03-07 00:53
#22
I have come to the realization that we will never experience true solidarity, the type of solidarity only possible with an actualized unity, until we dig down deep into our ranks and rip from ourselves root and branch the traitors, collaborators, and those we just don't like. When we've cut through the flotsam and jetsam and reached the core few, no matter how small we are, even it's finally just me, and maybe you though I question your motives, we will at last have unity, solidarity, and a common voice.
Sun, 2010-03-07 00:59
#23
I haven't felt the need to post for a long time. However, when I saw this on facebook today I had to say something
I have been linked to a few NFU people on facebook for a long time. Some of them are also linked to Mike Schreiner, now leader of the Ontario Greens, but at one time head of LFP (where NFU members got to know him). Anyway here is a comment made by Jim Harris and to me it reveals everything negative about what the Greens have become and why I left them after being a very early Green who helped establish a number of riding associations in the early days
Congratulations, congratulations, congratulations on two absolutely amazing GPO by-elections campaigns. The GPO surpassed the NDP - winning almost 1,000 votes more in the two ridings combined! Well done!!!
When you add up the votes that Mark MacKenzie won in Ottawa West-Nepean (2,360) and the votes Neil Kudrinko won in Leeds-Grenville (2140) the GPO won 4,500 votes - SIGNIFICANTLY more than the NDP in these two by-elections (2395 + 1140 = 3535) - FANTASTIC!
While Harris's comments are technically correct, leaving out the reality of poor NDP prospecting in a ridings like those to begin with, what I find troubling is how it reveals who the real target of the Greens truly is. It isn't the Liberals, it isn't the Conservatives - it is the NDP. The only other voice that has consistently supported the environment (as flawed as they are like every other political party) Harris's crowing over surpasing the NDP reveals who he sees as the party the Greens need to take votes from. And make no mistake Harris is looming very large in the background of Schriener's GPO.
The Greens have shown themselves to actually be the enemy of progressive people who care about the environment by revealing their real target is to take away NDP votes, not increase the number of voters voting for the environment. Shame on the Greens and shame on people like me who helped get this anti-environment abomination started. Sure confirms the old saying about good intentions.
Seriously??? This is the latest evidence to support "the great Green Party conspiracy theory"??? You really have to get out more. There are constantly threads on this forum about how, when and if the NDP will finally surpass the Liberals. Do you think it might only be natural for the Greens to measure themselves by surpassing the next party on the ladder?
Sun, 2010-03-07 01:07
#24
Interesting that the presumably intended word "if" was left out... "even [if] its finally just me"
Because it should read like this: "dig down deep into our ranks and rip from ourselves root and branch the traitors, collaborators, and those we just don't like.....until its just me."
Sun, 2010-03-07 02:21
#25
The Greens have done well in rural settings before - they get - perhaps putting it a bit too plainly - the hobby farmer/environmentalist set.
Sun, 2010-03-07 05:08
#26
They've done better than the NDP before in the suburban/exurban belts and they put in some effort. The appeal is broader than all those dismissive stereotypes. As others have noted- these are places where the NDP has never done better than very distant third. Party viability localy is part of voter choice. So the GP does not have that going against them among the 20% of the voters who will seriously consider voting for a candidate who simply cannot win.
Sun, 2010-03-07 08:53
#27
Ken S. --"The membership will let May do whatever she wants. But you have to attend the BGM to vote, only activists will do that, and the large Ontario cadre is not in thrall of May."
Hi Ken. You don't have to attend the BGM to vote. All Green members can vote online for resolutions, constitutional changes and by-law ammendments. That debate begins sometime in mid to late June. All resolutions and ammendments, etc. passed at plenary during the BGM must then be ratified by the membership as a whole by a mail in ballot within 3 months of the BGM.
Doug --"The Greens have done well in rural settings before - they get - perhaps putting it a bit too plainly - the hobby farmer/environmentalist set."
"Hobby farmers"? If you want to believe that then go ahead but it's not true. The GPO is gaining ground among lots of farmers.
Whatever internal cheerleading happens in the GPC/GPO shouldn't use up any oxygen in opposing parties since they need that oxygen for their own cheerleading efforts. There's much better debate to be had on real issues and events. The wake up call for the GPO is that they haven't done enough work to maintain whatever bounce they got in the last general election. These by-elections prove that the school issue was a gift handed to them and they took advantage of it to their benefit. Now the real work continues and they have decisions to make. The economy is the real issue both federally and provincially and you either have an alternative to the present economic environment or you don't. The
Sun, 2010-03-07 12:43
#28
scott
I'm strongly inclined to believe all this, based on Harrises' prior record, but can you provide a direct link for this?
It was posted to his Facebook status on Friday, but now it says:
Congratulations to the Green Party of Ontario (GPO), Mark MacKenzie & Neil Kudrinko. The GPO won ~1,000 more votes than the NDP in yesterday's 2 by-elections. In Ottawa West-Nepean, Mark MacKenzie won 2,360 votes & in Leeds-Grenville Neil Kudrinko won 2,140 votes for a total of 4,500 votes, 28% more votes than the NDP in these 2 by-elections. Congrats to all greens & GPO leader Mike Schreiner who campaigned so hard!
__________________________________
One struggle, many fronts.
Sun, 2010-03-07 14:10
#29
not sure what happened. apologies for repeat postings.
Sun, 2010-03-07 14:11
#30
post deleted
Sun, 2010-03-07 14:12
#31
post deleted
Sun, 2010-03-07 15:26
#32
Lou Arab
mimiguy - just as an FYI, I've deleted many of your duplicate posts.
Sun, 2010-03-07 18:13
#33
bagkitty
Lou.... can you recover them? the one you left is truncated, it was only the last of the posts that had the entire last paragraph. It seemed to be posting after each word past a certain point in the final paragraph, and you left the first one only...
Sun, 2010-03-07 18:29
#34
Lou Arab
Nope, sorry about that. mimiguy started at the beginning and left the first one, I went from the other end and met him/her in the middle. Mimi can edit if he/she wishes.
Sun, 2010-03-07 19:55
#35
I agree with both Doug and Ken on the Ontario Greens. With a an exception.
Rural ridings in Southern Ontario are patchworks of small towns that are designated rural. So while most of the rural voters may be suburanites without many neighbors, there are many more of them than hobby farmers, who tend to be owners of larger tracts of land. With some strategic PC style business policies with a Green cover, the party could make big gains from conservative leaners who think Hudak is a little over the top.
I've spoken with some very strong candidates from the federal and provincial Green team. In London-Fanshawe Dan O'Neail gets six to seven percent in a very tough riding. He works very hard. Monica Jarabek, in London-West, was picked up by the Liberals, I believe and will give the sitting Con to the wall next election, I bet.
I think the Greens will continue to make gains but they're a long way off getting a seat. They should be all over the Ontario Green enegy policies. I haven't heard much out of them on things like the Samsung deal.
Sun, 2010-03-07 21:47
#36
Hi Lou - Thank you. I still don't know how it happened but it has happened before. I'll try be more careful. The last post isn't truncated, I think I started a sentence and didn't finish, deciding the post was complete enough. Overlooked the incomplete sentence.
I'm not sure why the GPO isn't making more out of the Samsung deal. They certainly oppose it and I've heard Mike talk about it. I think there are a lot of progressive conservatives who are looking for an alternative and the Greens are looking more like an option. I'm not really with the provincial party so I'm not sure but I think they will be pursuing the rural ridings at a stronger pace than the urban ones as the election in 2011 gets closer.
Sun, 2010-03-07 23:04
#37
scott
What is the "Samsung Deal"?
Mon, 2010-03-08 06:07
#38
The province has made a green energy pact with Samsung.
To me, none of the opposition parties really dug into this deal and it would have been a good issue for the Green party to embrace.