Lemon Chicken has a blunt, yet nuanced piece about how voting NDP is like voting for Green Lite. Putting Elizabeth May in opposition makes much more sense if you’re a lefty communist pinko like I am*.
*Not really a lefty, communist, or pinko.
{ 2007 01 28 }
@hotmail.com
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.efc.ca/images/efcfreet.gif)
Anh Khoi Do | 28-Jan-07 at 11:33 am | Permalink
I didn’t know that you were a communist or anything that you say. I do agree that voting for the NDP is like voting for the Green Party, because both parties look like contestation party.
First of all, the NDP is a party that probably understands environment. However, one of its weakness is actually its lack of comprehension in economy. I’ve read the last platform made by the NDP during the last election. Jack Layton proposes many economic intervention here and there, but he doesn’t seem to propose any plans to create wealth.
As for the Green Party, it has always shown, in the public opinion, that it remains a party of contestation in environment. I respect people who vote for any of these parties, but both of them need to broaden their vision a little bit if they want to get some credibility.
Saskboy | 28-Jan-07 at 12:05 pm | Permalink
I’d suggest that having “broad horizons” is what has Canada in a pickle when it comes to the environment. There’s nothing that says the Greens wouldn’t lead just as well as the Conservatives or Liberals. Greens are average people too, and we have a bureaucracy to smooth the transition from government to New Canadian Government. It’s not beneath a party to bring in expertise from other areas if the party elected doesn’t have the members sitting in parliament to promote to cabinet positions. Harper picked Fortier and Emerson, and Martin picked Belinda for instance.
A government who focuses on “the economy” alone, without building a foundation for the economy to last forever, is selling the country short. I’d suggest to you that it’s the Liberals, NDP, and Conservatives who lack credibility. The Conservatives who freeze out the media, the Liberals who bought off the media, and the NDP who claim to be in favour of PR voting, yet make no serious moves to install it federally (or provincially where they rule in Sask.).
Joseph Krengel | 28-Jan-07 at 1:18 pm | Permalink
There’s nothing that says the Greens wouldn’t lead just as well as the Conservatives or Liberals.
Unfortunately a lack of experience can be a major impediment. The lack of any clear government experience is what crippled the NDP when they were elected in Ontario, and while I am not one to criticize them out-of-hand like some around here, I now appreciate how important being a part of the system is.
leftdog | 28-Jan-07 at 1:23 pm | Permalink
Green party support is ‘ an inch deel and a mile wide’ - hence there will be no Green party MP’s elected.
The NDP on the other hand, are extremely concentrated in various regions of the country and they will win some Members of Parliament (as they always do).
Those who do not understand this concept will disagree based on their own partisan ‘beliefs’.
11% for the Greens will very likely give them NO seats.
13% for the NDP will give them quite a number of seats.
leftdog | 28-Jan-07 at 1:24 pm | Permalink
that should read:
‘ an inch DEEP and a mile wide’
Blackstar | 28-Jan-07 at 2:21 pm | Permalink
Hi Saskboy,
As a fellow SK resident, I always enjoy your posts. I am more of a lurker and like to check liblogs a couple times a week to see what the blogs are saying. However, lately there is often at least one blogger ruining the presentation of liblogs with a too-large picture or gobbledy gook. Today, the blog is stretched and one has to scroll left to right to read anything to find out if a blog is worth clicking on.
Please notify the liblogs people and let them know. This ruins the look of the blog, discourages lurkers, and frightens less tech saavy people into thinking there are ‘bugs’ on the site. I have only checked the site twice in the last month. My declining interest is directly related to what I have described.
Sorry to bug you with this. Tried to post on Cherniak’s blog but he doesn’t allow anonymous comments and I am not logged in anywhere. Is there some kind of filter that can ‘look’ at a blog posting before it is accepted to the daily liblogs page?
I am only gonna say this once at your blog and hope someone does something about it soon. Missing liblogs as a safe, reliable site to log onto. Cheers.
Saskboy | 28-Jan-07 at 3:24 pm | Permalink
Joseph, there are constitutionally permitted ways to include politicians with “experience” when required. As I said, some of the problems in government come from a lack of turnover. In computer terms, we’re running Windows 98 without ever rebooting.
Blackstar I’ll leave a note at Cherniak’s but doesn’t he have email to contact him?
Leftdog I understand the concept fine. I wish your NDP would live up to its word and enact PR voting where it has the power to do so, to get the ball of democracy rolling again in this country. I know you understand the injustice of equal votes resulting in unequal representation in Parliament. If you don’t, who’s the one being “partisan” really?
Emily | 28-Jan-07 at 6:19 pm | Permalink
Lack of experience in THIS ‘new’ government is very apparent, eg.Navy runs out of money for gas, former Environment Minister is accompanied at all her public announcements, ‘attack ads’ needed during minority ‘always campaigning’ government, etc. etc. Also, ‘constitutional ways’ to include experienced politicians have included Emerson and Fortier. SO ‘up your nose’, eh?
Saskboy | 28-Jan-07 at 6:31 pm | Permalink
Emily, very few of those things can be attributed to “lack of experience”. The military being short on funds could be, but really that’s the bureaucracy’s job unless the government doesn’t want to fund the military [and the Conservatives do]. The Env. Minister having her hand held is more about Stephen Harper’s control freak mindset, and nothing to do with her lack of experience. She’s a woman, one with a loud mouth to boot, so it’s Ambrose’s fault that she let herself be shackled into inaction by Harper and whoever his cronies are pulling the strings. The attack ads are fine, it’s the Conservatives blowing their own money (in theory and hopefully in practice too).
Why Emerson’s switch was so ridiculous is because he crossed right after the election, when he should have/could have run as a Conservative to start with. Couple that with the Conservatives and Harper slamming the Liberals for enticing Belinda away from them, and it was Harpocrisy at its finest. Fortier was icing on the hypocrisy cake since he wasn’t a sitting member of the House, and has since declined to run.
Personally I think there’s too much party sniping at each other, when instead the best person for the job should be picked for cabinet. If a party is in government, and doesn’t have a member from Quebec, they should look to the Block or whoever did elect a member to serve in that role so long as the member promises to serve the interest of the country.
Lance | 29-Jan-07 at 3:11 am | Permalink
Saskboy said, “There’s nothing that says the Greens wouldn’t lead just as well as the Conservatives or Liberals.”
Unfortunately there’s also nothing that says the Greens would lead just as well as the CPC or LIbs.
Think about that for a second. May’s been on the job for a few months now and what do we know about the Greens; environment, environment, environment, oh, and that May is personally against frivolous abortion.
People are rapidly getting sick of hearing about the environment.
She came in 2nd in an election that the Greens threw everything they had in to win. Where are the youtube’s with May speaking on policy? The ad campaign?
Cheers,
lance
Saskboy | 29-Jan-07 at 7:41 am | Permalink
http://accidentaldeliberations.blogspot.com/2007/01/worth-highlighting.html
I’m not worthy ;-)
Saskboy | 29-Jan-07 at 7:43 am | Permalink
Lance, on the party website.
I agree, there could be doing more to get the message out, but for the moment the Greens have the ear of the press, and the press aren’t exactly asking questions of them that don’t pertain to the environment or abortion…
Lance | 29-Jan-07 at 10:02 am | Permalink
You and I both know that asking a Canadian to go to another website to get information on a brand the Canadian may not buy is not going to happen.
The Greens need to watch how the Liberals get their message out. Dion is asked specific questions, but he always devolves into talking about his three pillars. The CPC’s message is similar, 13 years . . .etc.
Get on the media panels. Newman, Taber, Duffy, Van Duesen. It doesn’t matter how, whether you pay to do it, but you have to get on them. If the pundits don’t respect your voice enough to put you or your handlers on a panel then no way are you going to make it on the debates, nor should you because Canadians won’t know anything about you anyway.
Cheers,
lance
Jim Elve | 29-Jan-07 at 12:59 pm | Permalink
The debate as to whether the GPC has the experience to form a governemnt is somewhat disingenuous. Who really thinks the GPC could go from 0 seats to even the slimmest minority? Nobody.
I’m a strong and long time Green supporter and member. As much as I might like to see Elizabeth May as PM, I entertain no fastasy that this is going to happen anytime soon.
The very best the GPC can hope for is to elect a small number of MP’s. As Leftdog correctly points out, our FPTP electoral system does work well for for the inch deep-mile wide party. I contend that the GPC support is deepening but whether we get enough support to elect a member or two remains to be seen.
My point is that nobody needs to be worried that we’re going to wake up on the day after election day with a GPC government. Nobody should refrain from voting Green due to such a ridiculous idea.
The Greens are essentially different from the NDP. While they both may be a place where protest votes are registered, as per Anh Khoi Do’s comment above, they represent quite different fiscal philosophies. The Greens recognize the importance of having business leaders on your side. The WEF in Davos last week was a good example of green philosophy being adopted by multinationals.
I agree that Elizabeth May should try hard to get on Newman, Duffy, et al, as much as possible. With the current public desire for real action on climate change and the environment, I think she’ll get more invitations.
Jim Elve | 29-Jan-07 at 1:02 pm | Permalink
FPTP electoral system does NOT work well
Sheesh! I’m always doing that.
je
Saskboy | 29-Jan-07 at 1:53 pm | Permalink
Lance it’s a fair point that the Greens are ignored/[don't get on] the crucial media. It’s hard to say if it’s a case of the chicken or the egg, or if it’s a case of the party not working hard, or the media falling into what’s familiar to them.
Jim, the Greens should set their goal on governing in 20 years, but starting with MPs this time. The Reform was like the Bloc in 1993, and they are in power right now just a little more than a decade later. Leftdog and Lance’s predictions may be on the money unfortunately, but I’m making it my business to invigorate support for the Green Party by getting many other people to vote with me in the next election. The popular vote is already at about 5% of Canadians, how high does it have to be before politicians feel shame about not representing a statistically significant portion of the electorate? When will they realize that the FPTP system is responsible for growing voter apathy? Maybe they don’t care. :-(
Lance | 29-Jan-07 at 3:02 pm | Permalink
Jim said: “I agree that Elizabeth May should try hard to get on Newman, Duffy, et al, as much as possible.”
That is absolutely the worst thing. No, hear me out, I didn’t just contradict myself.
May is the leader. The leader engages in the House, press conferences, and the debates. The leader shall not get into the mud with the pundits.
Cheers,
lance
Lance | 29-Jan-07 at 3:05 pm | Permalink
I should clarify the previous, the leader shall not get into the mud with the pundits when other parties are represented.
I would also say that the leader should not go on with just the host, but May has already broken that with all her Adler appearences.
Cheers,
lance
Jim Elve | 29-Jan-07 at 3:05 pm | Permalink
“When will they realize that the FPTP system is responsible for growing voter apathy? Maybe they don’t care. :-(”
Exactly. There is zero incentive for the parties in power to push for electoral reform. The controlling parties stand to lose power in any proportional representation scheme. Unless there is a major push from voters, reform will not happen. I’m not expecting any major push from voters, either. The issue is too complicated to get any traction.
20 years to a GPC government is a good goal. I’m fairly doubtful about achieving it that fast but setting a target and working towards it is a good way to make progress. Think Kyoto.
Jim Elve | 29-Jan-07 at 3:16 pm | Permalink
“May is the leader. The leader engages in the House, press conferences, and the debates. The leader shall not get into the mud with the pundits.”
True, Lance, but the Green Party is a fledgling party and stars are few and far between. The established parties have bigger budgets and have more paid spokespersons on staff than the GPC. Elizabeth May isn’t the only Green who could hold their own on the panels but she’s probably the only one who they’d invite.
The idea of keeping the leader away from potentially dangerous appearances where she could put her foot in her mouth is a god reason to send in the lieutenants. Presently, qualified, well-known GPC lieutenants are few and far between. May got into some hot water re abortion a few weeks ago. It’s blown over, as far as I can tell.
The GPC is not politics as usual and neither is our leader a typical politician. She needs visibility and she needs people to know her better. If that means risking looking non-political to teh viewers, the risk may pay off.
I do think she’ll be getting more invitations so we’ll probably get to see how she does.
Saskboy | 29-Jan-07 at 6:15 pm | Permalink
”
I would also say that the leader should not go on with just the host, but May has already broken that with all her Adler appearences.”
Glad you brought that up, as I caught some of Adler today tearing a strip off a blogging pundit, and how he was gushing over how Dion fared in the House today. He figured May was the way to go for green voters.
Morgan | 30-Jan-07 at 4:40 am | Permalink
The Green party can not win a single seat federally. They do their best in Conservative strongholds like Harper’s Calgary-Southwest.
To call voting NDP, voting Green-lite is a massive disservice to the environment. The NDP is within striking distance of winning in nearly 100 seats. Solving environmental problems requires countering corporate interests. The Greens do not have a strategy to do this. The NDP is damn good at witha strong track record.
There is not a single seat the Greens can win. We live in a first past the posts mess. Bite the reality bullet and vote with that in mind.
The NDP, unlike the Peter Steckle Liberals, Stockwell Day Conservatives and Elizabeth May Greens are a progressive (ie anti-choice) alternative.
Saskboy | 30-Jan-07 at 11:49 pm | Permalink
Can not, and will not are different things Morgan. If a well known celebrity runs for the Greens, they will almost certainly win, for that is what celebrities tend to do.
The NDP are a disservice to the environment, in practice. Saskatchewan’s crown corporation SaskPower is the number 3 CO2 polluter in Canada, and in the NDP’s reign, they’ve only encouraged the construction of one wind farm, no solar, no nuclear, and focused on the wrong path - cleaning/capturing coal.
They also let the rail roads be ripped out, and I just finished driving today on the disastrous highways that resulted from that. Rail of course being more efficient for moving heavy loads in any case.
I will not go on, but could.
“Solving environmental problems requires countering corporate interests. The Greens do not have a strategy to do this. The NDP is damn good at witha strong track record.”
Ahem? Buzz, auto, union. Check mate.
As for the Greens not having a strategy, how’s moving oil subsidies to initiatives that actually need supporting, work for countering your assertion?
Anti Choice, huh?