Green Party of Canada

Debater wrote:

The comment I made about Tom Mulcair was in reference to actual policies & positions that he is taking - it was not a personal attack on him.  Mulcair is apparently open to supporting Harper's anti-terrorism bill.  An NDP supporter had called Trudeau "increasingly right-wing" and so I was just countering by pointing out that it makes Mulcair increasingly right-wing if he's supporting Harper's legislation then, too.

I don't constantly try to insult Mulcair's intelligence or talk about his looks, etc.  I was commenting on the report in La Presse about Mulcair's openness to supporting the Conservative legislation.  That's called political analysis - not a personal attack.

ANd we are just stating how useless the policy is from Justin sto stop whining about it. Or stop pretending you are innocent in this. You want the cheap seats to not take shots, stop doing it yourself. "I don't intend on it" Means that it is innate in your post a reflex if you will. And its those knee jerk reactions that you happen o have and not notice that sets off the alarms in others. Again you did this back in the day while claiming to be a non partisan, even while I and other called you out on being a liberal, while you denied , denied, denied.

Civil Liberties is going to be a big issue, and if May is outspoken on it, good for her for doing that. She has nothing for me otherwise, so I will stay with the NDP. I expect the NDP not to take the same disastrous foreign and domestic security policy route as Harper.

I think it's the NDP that's showing its desperation by always attacking Elizabeth May & the Greens.

What is the NDP afraid of?

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Debater wrote:

I think it's the NDP that's showing its desperation by always attacking Elizabeth May & the Greens.

What is the NDP afraid of?

I assume you have a link and proof for this outragious statement.

Since when does Debater care about proof for posting anything on Rabble?

Thanks for back tracking.

First you said the NDP (meaning the party)

Now you say NDPers here.

Then you say always.

Now you say a lot of time. (whatever that means - I rarely see any comment on Elizabeth May here positive, negative or neutral)

Recently you said you were a lawyer. I point to this only since this is a profession where words and meanings matter. I suggest that you might respect that words matter here as well. And perhaps be less upset when called on obvious exaggeration.

As I recall Debater at one point intimated he was a lawyer and then backtracked and said he was only in some law related field.

Everyone is underestimating the green power in BC. I think that the liberals, ndp, green  vote  will be split evenly in many ridings, helping the robocallers. My brain  tells me liberals win 4 seats. green 2, ndp 15, cons 21. 

Debater wrote:

Nope.  Never said that.

What I said was that I'm a lawyer but I'm not currently practicing law on a daily basis.

Kind of like Tom Mulcair.

And it's irrelevant anyway.

No, it is quite relevant since a lawyer is not one I would give a pass to over the use of absolutes like Always or conflating supporters for the official voice of a party.

You told us you were a lawyer in order to gain credibility here in a previous discussion. You are being held to the standard of that credibility. That does include an expectation of some accuracy in your language.

I certainly have called you a Liberal partisan but have never taken your comments as the expression of the Liberal party.

montrealer58 wrote:

Interesting post ajay.

if the Greens advance by another 5% who do you think it will cost the most in terms of seats? Some have said that the Greens could get as many as 5 or 6.

This is an intersting question -- I suspect there is no easy answer.

There is some evidence to suggest that the Green compete with all the other parties -- including the Conservatives (Libertarians who see the need to improve the environment). There is competition for votes between the Greens and the Liberals and NDP as well. There are different reasons why the Greens may appeal to each party's supporters.

It could well be that the Greens could pull another 5 percent of the vote and the effect on the other parties be a wash. I don't see any reason why one party would benefit hugely over another given a rise for the Greens in the order of 5%.

Yes, in North Vancouver.

Not sure why she's picking that riding.

It's mainly an LPC vs. CPC battle there.

I wonder what type of effect this will have on the race?

Welcome Back, Elizabeth May

Paul Wells explains why the Green Party leader’s weekend outing is the least of her problems

But the Green Party, as a party, has wasted away until now it is basically a wizened life-support apparatus for May’s continued tenure as a member of Parliament. This guy used to keep track of Green Party Electoral District Associations that had lost their status as registered organizations with Elections Canada; by the time he gave up two years ago, it wasn’t looking good for the Greens. The party’s rules called for a leadership review vote in 2010; that got hoisted by a controversial party vote until after the 2011 election. When the vote happened, in 2011 May received more than 94 per cent support for her continued leadership; “turnout” for the online survey of party members was 23 per cent.

Meanwhile, she keeps talking. In 2006 she referred to some abortions as “frivolous.”  She said Stephen Harper’s position on climate change wasworse than Neville Chamberlain’s on Hitler. She’s really not sure about Wi-Fi.

Elizabeth May has stripped the Green Party for parts, turning it into a vehicle for the continued advancement of her career as a parliamentarian. She needs that career to be worth promoting. What she says when she’s at creepy weekend social events may be the least of her party’s problems.

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/welcome-back-elizabeth-may/

Elizabeth May's Press Gallery Dinner speech will haunt her, experts say

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/elizabeth-may-s-press-gallery-dinner-spe...

Has May put her seat in jeopardy now?

Amid debate disarray, May still expecting to be on stage

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2015/05/12/elizabeth-may-still-expects-to-be-on-...

NorthReport wrote:

Elizabeth May’s speech on Omar Khadr was profane but right: Walkom

The Green party leader’s speech to Ottawa's press gallery dinner has been harshly criticized as bizarre and vulgar, but it made a lot of sense.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/05/12/elizabeth-mays-speech-on-o...

Thank you, NorthReport, and thank God yet again for Thomas Walkom.

No wonder Harper doesn't go there. He's just too smart for that.

Always someone pushing hydrocarbons! Still, that graph could be for the oil price! Or the Canadian dollar!

When private investment schemes are passed by US states, there's all kind of money for renewables. Learn what is going on in the States. Canadians, being stuck in an oil mentality, are not even aware that Michigan has PACE loans in half of its counties, as Property Assessed Clean Energy programs spread across the States. Clean energy is cutting power when it comes to buildings. Add that to renewables, and you can get more net zero energy spots, as we are finding in the States.

Solyndra and the Smitherman program (paying 60c a kWh) in Ontario were both disasters for the taxpayer. The Ontario Liberal program was so bad it actually turned people against the idea of renewable power. There is some suspicion around this of Ontario Liberal patronage. Still, shutting off the coal plants at Nanticoke was the right thing to do. It will save thousands of lives in Canada and the US.

In Texas, wind now beats coal at the wholesale level. In America, people are ruthless about things like that. In the power markets, renewables are in range at a wholeale price. Market forces will do what governments will not do. Gas is still the cheapest, but as oil and coal fall it will rise for a bit as I have been noticing. The switch to gas from coal cuts out about 53% of the CO2 and other stuff like mercury. Banking on gas exports like Harper and Clarke want to do is nonetheless dumb. As more and more renewables and energy efficiency programs take hold (if not in Canada, but in all of our main competitors) demand for hydrocarbons will fall.

Worse still for hydrocarbon promoters is that the world has a 'carbon budget'. Oil producers (and their boy Harper) have been playing games on this, as syncrude oil refined into gasoline is just about as bad as coal. The mentality apocalypse for oil is we are not thinking of barrels a day any more. We are now just thinking in barrels. When there are oil gluts, we do not just burn it all like we used to. Instead, we keep installing renewables and energy efficiency.

If you are a Canadian car driver buying gasoline from an integrated Canadian oil company, you are subsidizing tar sands production at about $10.20 a barrel. The only way you will get cheaper gas is if they switch off the tar sands and ship in cheaper oil. Just know when you are burning that gasoline, it is as bad as coal despite what Harpers might tell you.

Without a cent of government money, the people of Canada have made it possible to drive an electric car across Canada. There is a strong Canadian sprit of determination to leave hydrocarbons out in the cold. They will have our electric cars whether the Conservatives like it or not, to paraphrase Ms. Notley.

==

So, last night Green Party leader Elizabeth May was certainly not anything like she had been at that horrible parliamentary dinner where she had not had over 100 hours of sleep.

In the debate, she did not deal with security issues in a way which would have been overly uncomfortable. She did not bring up subjects which most people would consider to be out of the realm of political conversation. She was very well informed on the subject matter in discussion (which did not include poverty, First Nations, or women's issues being the right-wing Maclean's), and I can only conclude she performed extremely well.

Some have been accusing her of being drunken and delusional on social media. If you want to look at that, consider when she said what she said, and look at the parliamentary speech time in May as the break. I think she got a lot better & she has been taking care of herself. Which is fortunate, because she is one of the few politicians (along with Niki Ashton and others) who knows how we are going to move out of the oil economy.

The Green candidate in Peterborough will endorse the NDP to ensure the Conservatives do not win the seat.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/green-hopeful-in-ontario-riding-reportedl...

Unfortunately a number of Conservatives are likely to win if the Greens siphon off some of the anti-Harper vote.

The Environics riding polls released yesterday show Joe Oliver winning by less than the Green vote.

Opposition candidates narrowly lead the Conservatives in several more seats by less than the Green vote: Fredericton, Lakeshore, Kitchener C, London NC, Willowdale, Van Granville, west Vancouver.

mark_alfred wrote:

Hi nicky.  Do you have a link for the Environics riding polls that you mentioned?  I'm curious to see them.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/leadnow/Environics-leadnow-aug-19-15.pdf

nicky wrote:

The Green candidate in Peterborough will endorse the NDP to ensure the Conservatives do not win the seat. http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/green-hopeful-in-ontario-riding-reportedl... Unfortunately a number of Conservatives are likely to win if the Greens siphon off some of the anti-Harper vote. The Environics riding polls released yesterday show Joe Oliver winning by less than the Green vote. Opposition candidates narrowly lead the Conservatives in several more seats by less than the Green vote: Fredericton, Lakeshore, Kitchener C, London NC, Willowdale, Van Granville, west Vancouver.

huh, my mom maintains the Greens were created  to further split the activist vote. let's believe other Green nominated candidates in the ridings where it is so close will do the same.

Quote:

The Green candidate in Peterborough will endorse the NDP to ensure the Conservatives do not win the seat.

That was weird when May did it for Dion, and it's still weird.

It may sound horrible to compare electoral politics to team sports, but when you go out on the field you go out to win, not to take a fall so that some other team you really don't like might lose.

Fair enough.  But there's no good analogy for a game with three players, and millions of "silent partner" supporters of those three players.

If I supported the Greens, it would be my expectation that they would also support themselves.

That said, a tip o' the hat to to this particular Green for stepping down rather than trying to burn the candle at both ends.

NDPP wrote:

Answers Found in Trunk of Elizabeth May's Car

http://www.canada.com/life/Greens+release+housing+strategy+that+calls+en...

"House all the homeless across the country. Retrofit every Canadian home to maximize energy efficiency. Give every low-income person a guaranteed livable income to help them afford housing. This is where the Green party would like to take Canada.

May said the party would release its platform, fully costed, after Labour Day..."

I would assume that the money to pay for these programs would come, in large measure, from the money saved in health care (i.e. from a healthier population) costs, court/prison costs (i.e. reduction in crime), as well as the elimination of some social programs that would become redundant as a result of the implementation of the Green Party's proposals.

I'm not a Green Party supporter, but I do support these programs. However, making a so-called "business case" for what's being proposed is crucial to getting the public onside. Hopefully, that is what May will do after the election.

mark_alfred wrote:

Liz May recently posted a blog entry on Rabble, Fixing what Harper broke: A to-do list for the incoming government.  I note she included repealing Bill C-36, which strikes me as a good thing.  The most recently addition to her list centres on decorum in the House.  Some good stuff.  link

To their credit the Greens put forward a progressive platform. They often are not that progressive, it is worth noting that, for the most part, in the last campaign they were.

Elizabeth May Misleads CJN, Smears BDS

https://twitter.com/dimitrilascaris/status/1128393325533454337

"In light of Paul's history, it is all too predictable that the Zionist lobby began attacking Paul within days of his victory. 'We have nothing to do with BDS,' May said. 'We repealed it.' 'We are not a party that condones BDS. We would never tolerate anybody in our party who violates our core values, who are anti-Semitic."

Support for Apartheid Israel  is a 'core value' of all Canadian parliamentary political parties. It shouldn't be. Don't vote for Zionism. Don't vote Green Party.