Wheels Falling Off Green Party Wagon

104 posts / 0 new
Last post
ottawaobserver

That campaign manager was considered a big catch, since he used to be a New Democrat, worked for the Barrett government, and ran for the NDP in Ontario in 1988 when he was the president of the National Union of Provincial Government Employees.

I haven't seen any reporting yet on John Fryer's side of the story, but folks I saw tweeting about this from Nova Scotia were not exactly surprised.

The bigger issue in that blogpost is their intention to raise more money from personal loans, which if the government's re-introduced legislation today were to pass would put that source of revenue out of reach.  Ken is the expert on this, but I doubt the Green Party could survive that change financially.

KenS

Didnt hear about reintroducing the legislation on banning private loans. Are they serious about actually getting it through this time? Since the NDP has supported the concept, passing it in the House would seem to be essentially guaranteed. And now the Liberals cant stop it in the Senate. [Though I'm not sure they even got as far as approaching that hurdle last time they introduced it.]

Yes, the GPC is highly dependent on recycling those private loans... and getting more so. Meanwhile, their plummeting creditworthiness makes it dubious they can continue to do part of their financing with financial institutions... let alone get ALL their loans there as the proposed leg would require. Not even remotely possible.

BTW, this is leg Elections Canada asked for. Since private loans serve to effectively make for a big loophole around donation limits.

ottawaobserver

Yes, Steven Fletcher had a newser today announcing it.  There was a little buzz on twitter yesterday that they might be tabling a proposal to ban subsidies, but in fact all they were doing was re-introducing this bill which died during prorogation.

KenS

I would suggest that Adrian Carr's push of the last several months to broaden the number of private loans is just the kind of "leakage" in the spirit of the rules that Elections Canada wants to put an end to.

Those people she is getting to loan money know full well the precarious state of GPC finances. Which means that from the start, they know and accept that it is very likely they will not be repaid. If it walks like a donation, and talks like a donation, then....  And in these cases, de facto donations many, many times greater than the contibution limits.

Augustus

Elizabeth May isn't going to win in SGI anyway, so it doesn't really matter that her campaign manager has resigned.

ottawaobserver

Gee, Augustus, who *is* going to win SGI?  (wait, wait, let me guess who you think it'll be ...)

Augustus

Who do you think it will be?  What is your prediction? Smile

ottawaobserver

Why do you keep winking at people who find you annoying?

Augustus

It's a smile, not a wink.  It's meant to be non-hostile.

Would you prefer I be rude?  I was politely asking you what your prediction is for this riding.

And why am I annoying?  Most people expect the Conservatives to retain SGI, just like most people expect the NDP to retain Winnipeg North whenever the next election is, yes?  What is your prediction for SGI and for Winnipeg North?  I'm pretty sure we'll agree.

Why do you consider it biased to point out what is probably going to happen?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

This thread is still GOING? Jeez, how many wheels does that Green Party wagon HAVE, anyway?

Stockholm

If you look at the results in SGI in 2006 when the NDP actually had a candidate and when you look at the fact that of the two provincial ridings that make up SGI - one went NDP narrowly and one went BC Liberal narrowly - I would actually say that were it not for EMay, the NDP would have a very good shot at winning that seat - esp. with current polls showing the NDP essentially tied with the Tories across BC. All that May will accomplish is splitting the anti-Tory vote three-ways instead of four and ensuring the Gary Lunn wins with about 30% of the vote.

JeffWells

Ralph Benmergui, Strategic Communications Advisor. That's the nail in the coffin right there.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

The Greens are indeed a gift for Harper.

Bluegreenblogger

Stockholm wrote:

If you look at the results in SGI in 2006 when the NDP actually had a candidate and when you look at the fact that of the two provincial ridings that make up SGI - one went NDP narrowly and one went BC Liberal narrowly - I would actually say that were it not for EMay, the NDP would have a very good shot at winning that seat - esp. with current polls showing the NDP essentially tied with the Tories across BC. All that May will accomplish is splitting the anti-Tory vote three-ways instead of four and ensuring the Gary Lunn wins with about 30% of the vote.

 

Boy, doesn't show a very good grasp of BC politics. If you discard this hypothesis, and look at the facts of the last election, the dipper WITHDREW, from the race. Brionny Penn, former GPC candidate stood for the Liberals. The local Greens were pretty well split, many ofthem moving over to the Libs with Brionny. Even within the GPC camp there were Greens speaking out in favour of a strategic vote for the Liberals. And with all this going on, Lunn shellacked the Liberals and won handily. This is half baked statistics gazing.

 

Now if you are tired of vote splitting, try this on for size. The NDP has withdrawn from the class struggle, and now they are just another somewhat left of centre party. Aside from the presence of the public sector unions, the NDP is indistinguishable from the Liberal Party. ANd yet they persist in contesting elections, splitting the vote, and have virtually guaranteed ongoing Harper minority governments when it is actually in their power to ensure a Liberal majority. So why don't you all stop pretending it's all the Green Party's fault, and take a long hard look in the mirror? You have all proven that you know a little arithmatic. I know you mostly do, because you have correctly noted that the GPC vote represented the margin of victory or greater in some 30 odd ridings. Apply the same skills to the NDP vote, and you will find that the NDP spoiled the election in over 100 ridings!!!

If you find this truth unpalatable, then perhaps you will start to realise why Greens just shrug off your' delusional arithmetic endeavours.

ottawaobserver

Delusional arithmetic?  Funny, that's the way I would have described your party's current financial situation.

George Victor

Pronouncing the federal NDP  indistinguishable from the Liberals is such a nonsensical statement that one assumes you live on magic mushroom mountain yourself.

Bluegreenblogger

Yes, I agree that the GPC finances are founded on delusion, but that doesn't address my points now, does it? And George Victor apparantly thinks that there is a difference between the Liberals and NDP. Like what? I haven't seen anything from the NDP in recent years that couldn't have come out of the Livberal war room, if an election win was in the air.

I have asked you collectively if you can explain why what is sauce for the goose, is not suace for the gander. I note that nobody challenges my assertion that with the NDP gone, the CPC fades into obscurity. I doubt that anybody would argue that this would be less meaningful than the GPC withdrawing, and the dippers winning 5 or 6 seats, while the Liberals win perhaps 20 more. So if there is any intellectual, and moral rigour present, I expect that you will all be taking out Liberal memberships tonight, no?

Of course I know this won't happen, because most of you on rabble are partisan, and your arguments don't cut both ways. That is because I don't think you actually believe them. You are simply scratching each others nuts, in a cosy partisan setting, and dreaming of scenarios where you get a taste of power.

 

remind remind's picture

First off, you go wrong by comparing the Green Party to the NDP.

Get back to us when the Green Party has some seats and perhaps someone will be willing to address your less than brilliant fallacies.

 

Though your sexist "nut scratching" is indicates perhaps even then no one would bother.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Remind cut him some slack it must fell like a kick in the gonads to be Green in BC while Campbell implodes and nobody even knows who the leader of the Green party is. 

I think that all NDP'ers will owe a debt of gratitude to E.May after the next election.  She is on the brink of reducing the party to its numbers from 20 years ago. 

remind remind's picture

Not much interested in cutting anybody any slack actually, especially not Green Party appeasers who have played the duck to EMay's keeping CON seats safe for them.

IMV, they rank right up there with people who out babblers, as I saw that in another thread too tonight, as well as passive bragging about longevity of being a babbler, even though said bragging person tried to destroy babble at one point and was  gone almost for longer than they were a member for.

 

George Victor

The Green Party Libertarians who live off the public trough while offering to assuage the guilt pangs of market-dependent yuppies and throwbacks to the flower children of the 60s with Buck Rogerish explanations for life in the future - these are the scary ones. Conservative to the core and congenital liars.

mmphosis

Coalition.

ottawaobserver

Parliamentary, not Electoral.

Bluegreenblogger

I see that the only attempt to rise to the challenge was remind above. Apparently the NDP is NOT like the Green Party, it has seats. Oh, and it is absolutely true that many babblers don't have nuts to scratch, so that must make me a sexist. And everybody knows that raving neocon libertarian Buck Rogers loving, Babbler outing, public trough gorging, sexist, Conservative, congenitally lying greens should not have their direct questions answered, because ???

I am waiting to hear a cogent argument as to why what is sauce for the goose isn't sauce for the gander. Sorry, that isn't gender neutral, so I'll restate it. What's sauce for the goose, is sauce for the other goose. Oh dear, is goose a generic term for the species, or is it sexist? I mean, if Humans have a gender neutral appellation, why don't geese? We'll have to get to work on that one.

I also appreciate the name calling, it's really quite remarkable invective. I mean you all put together such a lovely string of insults, in only 17 lines of commentary!  Do you keep a thesaurus handy, open on the entry for simili's for Reactionary Asshole?

I am sorry I came here and asked why you are being hypocrites. You are permitted to be whatever you want, after all, it's your playground. But perhaps, just maybe, some of you will pause a second, and realise that the Green Party isn't interested in going away. They don't care if they split your vote, because they disagree with many of your policies, and want something different to vote for. In fact, in those ridings where the NDP vote is useful, they (gasp!) actually go out and Campaign to win your' supporters away!! I mean how dare they? Don't they know that these are historically NDP property? The NDP is ENTITLED to those votes, because they KNOW what's best for those silly voters. Your arguments about strategic vote splits are far more meaningful when applied to the NDP than ever they were when applied to the Greens.

 

Be Good

Stockholm

"And with all this going on, Lunn shellacked the Liberals and won handily."

...that's a bit of an exagerration. Lunn took 43% of the vote and Briony Penn took 39% with the Greens and the NDP left in the dust. I don't consider 43-39 to be a "shellacking". When you consider that across BC the Tories really cleaned up across BC last election and got 45% compared to 26% for the NDP and 19% for the Liberals - the Tory margin of victory in SGI was not all that impressive.

remind remind's picture

Apparently you fail to realize that cogent position has to be taken, or prersented, before one asks for a cogent response to it.

 

ottawaobserver

And with that, remind, I think you've pretty well said all that needs to be said.

Bluegreenblogger

remind wrote:

Apparently you fail to realize that cogent position has to be taken, or prersented, before one asks for a cogent response to it.

 

 

What's the difficulty? I have read on these pages literally hundreds of times that the Green Party has to dissolve itself so that the NDP can have their votes. My response is to ask why the NDP doesn't dissolve itself so that the Liberal Party can have their votes. Is that not cogent enough for you?

 

I have been called lots of funny things, and we have all had a good chuckle, but nobody has explained how it is not hypocritical to call for the GPC to dissolve itself to serve the electoral intests of the NDP, while not considering the argument that the NDP should dissolve itself in order to elect the Liberal Party. If there is truly a policy difference between the NDP and the Liberals, then that would explain it, but none of you seem to think thats an argument, or you would have made it. Of course policy differences exist between the NDP and the Greens as well. Either that, or you have all been wasting your time thinking up all those 'nasty' things to say to me about being a libertarian, Conservative, trough gobbling, etc. Actually, if all your 'insults' are meaningful, then you should be praying for enhanced electoral strength for the GPC. If we are truly servants of the dark side, then our growth will be at the expense of the Conservatives, and our dissolution will result in a CPC majority Government. Maybe a few more NDP wins can squeak by in BC, or Ontario.

But really, I am just funning with you. I know you are mostly uber partisan, and you have bought into the mistaken idea that voters can be bandied about like this. The fact that people chose to vote for us over you is a side issue. Rather than address the policy failings which lose you those votes, it's way more fun to hurl invective, insults, and pretend that 1+1=7. You compete for power because you want power. The GPC competes for power because they want to influence those who have the power. You wish they would go away, because you mistakenly think it would serve your interests.

Well it wouldn't, but then none of us are being serious. I doubt that any of you believe that you would win more than 1/4 of the Green electorate if the GPC went away. So where would the balance go? 1/4 would stay at home, 30% would go Liberal, and the other 20% would go to the CPC. That is a demonstrable fact based on hard data, not opinion. Very hard to see any advantage for the Dippers there.

 

Oh yeah, the 'analysis about SGI. It WAS a shellacking. Every star aligned for the Liberal Party last time out. You remember West's pulling out of the race? You remember Brionny Penn was the previous GPC candidate. You are aware that the local Greens were split between campaigning for the Liberals, and staying at home? The only vaguely possible way the Liberals could have eked out a win would have been if the CPC didn't run a very clever, if scummy trick. They ran a strong GOTV for the withdrawn NDP candidate. Damn! That was truly Macchiavellian! They actually ramped up the vote for a withdrawn candidate, who was still on the ballott! That effectively denied maybe 1,000 votes for the Liberals, and maybe 200 votes for the Greens. I think it's gross, but I hear many of you guys, sorry I mean folks, live in the 'anything goes in the quest for power' world, so put it on tap for future use.

Life, the unive...

You know bluegreenblogger you are exactly the reason I left the Greens.  Keep it up I am sure you will move more support away with your attitude.  Just sayin'

Sean in Ottawa

Bluegreenblogger, while I disliked some of the things you said in this thread, I actually agree with the main point as I see it.

I do not presume to think the Greens can be, or should be, told to go away and I do not assume that the vote would go to the NDP or to any other party in great numbers anyway. I do not like the level of condescension here about the Greens. I do not consider the Greens to be taking NDP space and I do think that they have a distinct platform. I happen to prefer the NDP for many reasons which is my choice but I do not assume that the Greens are any less legitimate a choice than the Cons or the Liberals and I can respect yours.

Still some of what you say seems more provocative than practical. If you like that kind of invective then you are inviting more but if you are looking for something else then toning done a little might work better. I would have liked to come in to this thread and ask people to be less insulting to the Greens but your posts make that difficult. Unfortunately by engaging in rather than rejecting this type of discussion, you justify rather than reduce it.

Stockholm

"Oh yeah, the 'analysis about SGI. It WAS a shellacking. Every star aligned for the Liberal Party last time out."

You forgot that they were led by Stephane Dion and that at the national level they ran just about their weakest and most amateurish campaign in history - and that led to their popular vote in BC diving to an all-time low of 18% - and a nfalling tide lowers all ships. There were SOME stars aligned in the Liberals favour in SGI last time - but the super nova was aligned against them.

ottawaobserver

I've never said that the Green Party shouldn't run, or that their votes are "ours".  I think they are amateurish and undisciplined, and many are a bit sanctimonious (although I'd explicitly exclude mimeguy there), or brash.  And I do take some satisfaction when folks who quit the NDP in a huff to go over to the GPC, are now leaving with more whimper than bang.

I just don't see them as contributing too much to the policy debate at present, but rather as being obsessed with campaign tactics and techniques and endless, endless internal intrigue.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

bluegreenblogger, would you mind giving us two or three examples of areas where the NDP is unacceptable on environmental issues, as you see it?

 

Also...with a name like "BLUEgreenblogger", is there any reason why people here shouldn't assume you are in the farthest right wing of the GPC?  If you aren't, why would you choose a blogging name like that?  It's most likely your name that has started people on the assumption that you have a hidden center-right agenda.

ottawaobserver

You haven't read his blog, I guess, Ken Burch.  He's definitely a VERY BLUE (in the green party) blogger.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

I hadn't read his blog(other than when it had been quoted above, and before your post I hadn't made the connection.

Augustus

NDP MP David Christopherson said in the House of Commons this week that he feels the Green Party should be entitled to a seat in Parliament based on the last election's results.

How do other NDP supporters feel about his statement?

George Victor

Oh, I think that FAIRNESS is all important in deciding to admit to a Parliamentary seat a party that does not give a fiddler's fart for all those people who would be hurt by its predilection for a market solution to everything.   Yes, yes, fair is fair is fair....above all. How Etonian.

George Victor

Oh, I think that FAIRNESS is all important in deciding to admit to a Parliamentary seat a party that does not give a fiddler's fart for all those people who would be hurt by its predilection for a market solution to everything.   Yes, yes, fair is fair is fair....above all. How Etonian.

George Victor

Oh, I think that FAIRNESS is all important in deciding to admit to a Parliamentary seat a party that does not give a fiddler's fart for all those people who would be hurt by its predilection for a market solution to everything.   Yes, yes, fair is fair is fair....above all. How Etonian. Play

George Victor

Oh, I think that FAIRNESS is all important in deciding to admit to a Parliamentary seat a party that does not give a fiddler's fart for all those people who would be hurt by its predilection for a market solution to everything.   Yes, yes, fair is fair is fair....above all. How Etonian. Play up,

George Victor

Oh, I think that FAIRNESS is all important in deciding to admit to a Parliamentary seat a party that does not give a fiddler's fart for all those people who would be hurt by its predilection for a market solution to everything.   Yes, yes, fair is fair is fair....above all. How Etonian. Play up, play

George Victor

Oh, I think that FAIRNESS is all important in deciding to admit to a Parliamentary seat a party that does not give a fiddler's fart for all those people who would be hurt by its predilection for a market solution to everything.   Yes, yes, fair is fair is fair....above all. How Etonian. Play up, play the game, for chrissake.  What maudlin crap.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

So George, how important do you think fairness is in deciding to give the Greens despite their support for market solutions?

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

As a strong believer in proportional representation as the only fair way to allocate seats in a representative legislature, I completely agree with my MP, David Christopherson. It is a pity that obstacles such as 60% thresholds in referenda are placed in the way of such electoral reform by the parties who benefit from false majorities. Personally, I feel that no referendum should be necessary for this sort of electoral reform. It should simply be part of the election platform of all reasonable parties. When such parties form a government, they should implement it. Period. I hope that all other NDP MPs will be as fair and honest as David.

 

JKR

Augustus wrote:

NDP MP David Christopherson said in the House of Commons this week that he feels the Green Party should be entitled to a seat in Parliament based on the last election's results.

How do other NDP supporters feel about his statement?

The Greens should have received 20 seats.

ottawaobserver

This is assuming that people would have voted the same way if there were a different electoral system in place. That's an awfully big assumption, and I don't think very supportable.

Now, who knows, the Green vote might have been higher.  So might ours.  But just as easily, things could have been very different too.

Bluegreenblogger

Now I confess I am surprised. The discussion turned away from invective, and towrds some substance. As far as Bluegreenblogger monniker, It was adopted long ago when I blogged anonymously, and was intended to startle and provoke Greens. The GPC members and EDA's are woefully uninformed about effective camapign tactics, strategy, and the purely mechanical aspects of campaigning. I wanted to share my knowledge, but Greens knew me as the Organiser who ran the bulk of Elizabeth Mays leadership campaign as Ontario Organiser. That is NOT an association I wanted associated with the advice I was proferring.

It worked pretty well, and rehabilitated me amongst my fellows when I was finally outed as Matthew Day. So you see, the Blue in the name was an effective effort to re-brand myself. That said, despite the vagueness of the monniker, it does trend towrds maybe a centrist, or fiscal conservative side of the Party, and since many of the very best organisers and activits inthe GPC come from the centre, or from a Libertarian type head space, it gave me an entree into their thinking.

That said, I am not right wing the way you might think of it, as vague as that might be. I don`t really care where in the left-right political spectrum you want to get your policy from, I care that it be effective, and serve the commons, not some parochial group hevering somewhere along the spectrum. In fact, I don`t see how you could draw such a conclusion from my blog, because I have almost completely avoided policy discussion there. I can only think of a single policy post, where I blasted the CPC for attempting to legislate mandatory jail terms for people growing even 1 pot plant. I don`t see how that makes me a reactionary, fire-breathing conbot.

So with that cleared up, I`ll answer the question above about policy differences. The NDP promotes a cap and trade approach to CO2 and pollution abatement in general. That is ideologically based, and totally misses the boat. Yes, I know that we can point to the mulroney-reagan acid rain treaty as a successful example, but that was a very circumscribed case, with a small number of sources of a particularly pernicious pollutant. To try to apply that on a really wide scale will simply not get the job done. It will create secondary markets that are convoluted, and susceptible to gaming on a wide scale. It also pre-supposes that large corporations are bogeyman, but the fact is that the polluting activities will simply shift to the margin of the market, and grow quietly there amongst smaller players below the threshold for maintaining expensive internal mechanisms to deal with the Cap`n`Trade regime. It is my belief that adherence to this policy by the NDP is a brazen gift to public sector unions who can reasonably expect an enormous growth in Public sector employment to serve this regime. Bad policy, crafted to pay lip service to environment, while providing lashings of goodies for the NDP`s most powerful constituents.Opposed to that is a GPC commitment to a broad market based pricing mechanism. That would affect everybody equally, and has a much better chance of having the desired outcome, while reducingthe cost and complexity to a manageable, uniform level.

You might all think you know me because you can slot me into your word view by applying a label. If you think you know what I think about policy, and blog under a name with blue in it, you are wasting your time, and coming to a host of erroneous conclusions. That is what I was chuckling about when the name flinging started. It is sooo simplistic, and really has come to characterise rabbles normal offerings in my mind. Now this thread has turned to something different, and it is a refreshing change

 

Bluegreenblogger

Michael Moriarity wrote:

As a strong believer in proportional representation as the only fair way to allocate seats in a representative legislature, I completely agree with my MP, David Christopherson. It is a pity that obstacles such as 60% thresholds in referenda are placed in the way of such electoral reform by the parties who benefit from false majorities. Personally, I feel that no referendum should be necessary for this sort of electoral reform. It should simply be part of the election platform of all reasonable parties. When such parties form a government, they should implement it. Period. I hope that all other NDP MPs will be as fair and honest as David.

 

It is more than just fine to believe in PR, it is an admirable objective. But despite the advantage it would bring, it isn`t the case right now. Since we live in a FPTP system, there would not be anything fair about simply delivering a seat or two, or twenty to the GPC. I can agree with the sentiment, but to actually propose it seriously, in the absence of a proper national debate, and referendum isn`t on. I`m afraid that if we all want PR, then we will have to achieve it the long way by persuading our fellow citizens that it is desirable, and winning their votes in a referendum.

KenS

Since we're all being open and tranaprent now, I thought I should reveal that the person known as Bluegreenblogger and myself are having a clandestine meeting.

Matt, you obviously didn't see the long running discussions here 2 years ago on Lib/Green versus NDP climate change policy packages. Suffice to say theres more to it than cap and trade versus carbon tax. I'll ponder whether I want to go there again.

KenS

Bluegreenblogger wrote:

.... for maintaining expensive internal mechanisms to deal with the Cap`n`Trade regime. It is my belief that adherence to this policy by the NDP is a brazen gift to public sector unions who can reasonably expect an enormous growth in Public sector employment to serve this regime. Bad policy, crafted to pay lip service to environment, while providing lashings of goodies for the NDP`s most powerful constituents.Opposed to that is a GPC commitment to a broad market based pricing mechanism. That would affect everybody equally, and has a much better chance of having the desired outcome, while reducingthe cost and complexity to a manageable, uniform level.

Short form answer: the promise of revenue neutrality that was part of the GPC package was nothing more than pandering. And would make impossible the green spending initiatives that were part of the package... leaving only the carboin tax, which does next to nothing on its on. Bad policy crafted to pay lip service to GPC agendas, and promising voters it won't cost THEM anything.

Pages