The Green Party TM
Worse than just a single-issue party, the Green Party is nothing more than a brand name. Kind of like Nike. You want to believe that if you buy brand name running shoes that you will be more fit and look cooler, and that some how they are better than other shoes. But rip off the swoosh and you have an inferior product made by a company with questionable ethics. Branding the Green Party as 'fresh' and 'new' while it is identified, through its name, as an advocate for one of the most topical issues of our time is a marketing ploy. The Liberals have been using their brand name to trick progressive Canadians out of their votes for decades. This tactic is neither 'fresh' nor 'new.'
Back in Realityland the Green Party is a mess of an organization. Because of its lack of defined social principles, the Green Party is home to disaffected protesters from all parties. It is a place where people who are not team players can go to feel like 'big fish' and young rebels can feel uh, rebellious. It may have been about raising issues on the environment in its inception but they have never been as effective at their stated goal as New Democrats have, who are actually running to form government.
David Suzuki was quoted today saying:
“I can't wait until there is no Green Party,” Dr. Suzuki was quoted as telling the Toronto Star.
“As long as there's a Green party, the implication is that the Greens somehow have a stranglehold on this issue; they're the ones that worry about the environment so the other parties can worry about other things. I don't think it's a ghetto subject.”
Elizabeth May is not Progressive
People worry about Harper's hidden agenda or the fact that Dion keeps changing his Green Shift proposal, but May is the sketchiest of all. It's hard to tell what she actually stands for, other than the environment, because she has a different line depending on who she is talking to. She tries to cast herself as more evolved than the old-school politicians, but her backroom shenanigans with Stephane Dion are as old as it gets.
May uses her gender as an issue when it suits her politically but she has slapped women's rights in the face with her anti-choice comments. Her "I don't think a woman has a frivolous right to choose" comment compelled prominent feminists Like Judy Rebick to withdraw their support for her.
She supports Liberals:
But even as Ms. May vehemently denied she is co-operating with the Liberals, an email surfaced showing Ms. May cheering on a Liberal candidate. This morning at 9:19 a.m., Ms. May sent an email to Brent Fullard, the new Liberal candidate in Whitby-Oshawa, Ont., and copied the email to a broad range of reporters and politicians.“I cannot help myself!!! GOOD LUCK BRENT!!!,” writes Ms. May in response to a Liberal press release announcing Mr. Fullard's candidacy.Courtesy of Jason Cherniak, we see that Elizabeth May endorsed Liberal candidate, Bryon Wilfert, and that her endorsement is on his campaign literature(!!!):
-Globe and Mail, Monday Sept 8, 2008
Her endorsement (highlighted above) reads:
As Executive Director of Sierra Club of Canada, I worked closely with Bryon Wilfert when he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment, Stéphane Dion. He was unfailingly helpful in work at the Environment Committee and in work to prepare for the United Nations Climate Conference. Now that I lead a different political party, I am still happy to attest to this commitment.Imagine being Joe Greencandidate in that riding. Must be rough.
Elizabeth May
Leader, Green Party of Canada
She also tried repeatedly to woo (more) Conservatives to the Green Party. In her attempt to gain entrance into the leaders' debate, May ambulance-chased every rogue MP that surfaced in the last parliament- some of them, deeply conservative.
Former Conservative MP Garth Turner, who campaigned with May in the London by-election, admitted that he had talks with Elizabeth May about joining the Greens before he joined the Liberals.
May proclaimed former long-time Conservative MP Bill Casey, "an honourary Green."
The long and short of it is that May and the Green Party are not progressive, and they are massive hypocrites for trying to wave the flag of democracy over the debate issue. True defenders of democracy don't play games for their own personal gain at the expense of Canadians' right to vote for the candidate and political party of their choice.
Elizabeth May is a severe opportunist and I feel terribly sorry for all those who fall for this highly sophisticated ploy.
Suggested further reading:
-Dan Baril- Former Green Party strategist (also a former Conservative strategist) ripping apart May's reaction to being initially excluded from the debates.
-Mia Rabson from the Winnipeg Free Press on how undemocratic May and her political games are.
UPDATE!!!
Elizabeth May calls Canadians "stupid." Nicely done.
Posts
30 comments:
aside from the numerous fallacies you spout, this remark made me giggle...
"True defenders of democracy don't play games for their own personal gain at the expense of Canadians' right to vote for the candidate and political party of their choice."
They don't? Then what was Layton doing, what about Harper? Playing schoolyard games and whining to not show up if May does? Canadians have a right, and that right is to hear whatever party they want to hear in a debate. To have 2 leaders act like children and make threats is taking that right away. Jack Layton had my support but not now, I have become disillusioned with the NDP, and not just because of this. In fact, May doesn't have my support either, but I am happy to see that shes going to the debate.
Thanks Erin, for the comment, but I should be complimenting you because this is the best analysis of the May that I have ever seen! Kudos to you!
Oops .. my typo ... I called her 'the May' because when I wrote that I didn't know whether to write "the Greens" (or) "May" ... so forgive my 2 fingered typing!
LD
Seven, Liberals/Greens pretending to be former New Democrats was yesterday's scam. Get with the times.
And I don't know what Stephen Harper was up to but Layton was very sincere in his objections to having May in the debate. It would be undemocratic for the Liberals to have two representative there.
But that too is yesterday's news. She has bullied her way in now.
Thanks LD. But if you, or anyone else have anything to add...I'm sure that there is more evidence out there that I am forgetting.
Ya, I am scamming for I have never voted NDP *rolls eyes...Growing up in a household where my dad was a member of the CAW for many years, I suppose I wouldn't have been indoctrinated into the NDP ideology, voted NDP since my first vote in 1997 up until the last election. I certainly am not liberal and no Green. In fact, I'm debating whether or not to even cast a vote this time around, same old bs from every party.
Guess what?
Everyone person I know who is anti-Tory tells me: "why can't the NDP, the Liberals and the Greens cooperate and choose seats where each won't run against the best candidate with a chance to defeat the right?"
And all the partisan Dippers and partisan Libewrals and partisan Greens yell: "no, it can't be done! It wouldn't be right!"
Guess what: in Vancouver, the Greens and the 2 leftwing parties at the municipal level, including the one close to the NDP, have just agreed to not run against each other in ridings for parks board, city council and schools. They have cooperated and divided up the seats between the candidates with the best chance to get a progressive elected.
So, May makes deals with other leaders or candidates to help the best anti-Tory? Makes sense to most ordinary people I know. Just doesn't make sense to the dogmatic partisans of all parties.
But guess what? Most people I know are totally cynical about parties and politicians and partisan spin. So when May comes along an "f...s up the game plan" by promising to cooperate and praises people from other parties when they have a good idea or two, most people I know start paying attention.
Don't forget this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqjavGYRRrc
If Liberals need to have TWO leaders in the debate just so Jack can debate Harper, so be it.
If we had proportional representation, much of the argument here would become moot, not to mention some of the ingenious suggestions for strategic voting. Too bad none of the parties is front-burnering that issue. At least the Greens and most (but not all) of the NDP can agree on that one.
Not a bad piece on May, if not entirely accurate. But her politics were never the issue in the current controversy. It was a triumph of good old-fashioned Canadian instincts of fairness, which began to resonate dangerously when Layton's involvement became known. We like to give folks a shot in this country, and we react strongly against bullying and exclusion.
And I am glad Jack did the right thing.
Ending debate debate 2008.
But Hypocrisy knows no bounds with the Green Party. The Green Candidate for Grey-Bruce Owen Sound is a "Bruce Power Nuclear" worker. http://gbosgreens.ca/bio.html
I have no problems with "nuclear" but gee, the anti-nuclear stance May is quite upfront here:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=UiKYdAuG9vU
and in their policies.
http://www.greenparty.ca/en/node/4799
Sure is two-faced.
In fact, May was at Dick Hibma's nomination meeting, where he stated that he saw nuclear as part of the "green solution." Understand May remained "mum" on the Greens anti-nuclear stance.
Amazing!
What gives with that cute little old tag line: we're "doin" politics different - NOT
After watching that video clip(courtesy of leftdog), I understand their new slogan - Go Greens, Vote Liberal!
Take 1/2 French 1/2 Canadian (Dion) = 1/2 American 1/2 Canadian (May)Shake well, and voila=
1 Canadian Liberal in the debates.
Bruce said: The Green Candidate for Grey-Bruce Owen Sound is a "Bruce Power Nuclear" worker. http://gbosgreens.ca/bio.html
I have no problems with "nuclear" but gee, the anti-nuclear stance May is quite upfront here:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=UiKYdAuG9vU
Doesn't that remind you of the Liberals, talking Green but NOT doing anything about it for over a decade?
On the "Vote Red-Green, elect Conservatives" front, Dan Baril made several salient points on his September 10th post.
"Elizabeth May is at least realistic enough to accept that the Green Party isn't going to form the government even if she is not realistic enough to accept she is also not going to defeat Peter MacKay in Central Nova, deal or no deal....Is it impossible to conceive of an after-the-fact floor-crossing to the Environment ministry? Surely that back-room-deal hasn't been pre-negotiated either."
"As for Mr. Dion, I can't politely explain why he does not get it that the deal with Elizabeth May leads to further vote-splitting among the non-Conservative parties that only serves to facilitate the Conservative candidate to more easily sneak up the middle in a first-past-the-post voting system."
Elizabeth May has a craven disregard for democracy, and stopping Conservatives.
Great post.
The last time I voted NDP was when I was 24, and that was over 30 years ago. Been solid both small and big C conservative since then.
I give May credit for running a great PR campaign, even though her premise about "this is anti-female" was as transparent as it gets.
That being said, there is NO way she should be in this debate.
NO elected Member of Parliament.
LESS than 5% of the vote in the last federal election.
NO provincial elected member.. ever.
What next, does the Christian Heritage Party get a seat at the table? What about the Marxist-Leninist Party?
Oh, and the Bloc should not be there either.
Let's keep it to new or traditional national parties who now represent or have had an elected seat in the House, or who have more than 10% of national vote in the last election.
Canadians want a real debate with issues being discussed, not every fringe party that is out there being represented.
This right-wingers opinion only.
While I agree that the Greens are not completely principle-based..some greens are more left than others. The NDP is definitely not any better. The fact that some NDP'ers defended Layton's decision shows they care more about party than principles.
And here you are taking Suzuki's quote out of context to make a point. It's unbelievable how far NDP'ers are willing to go to discredit the Green Party. So far that they're willing to deceive their readers.
Here are Suzuki's comments in full context:
“One of the most frustrating things that we have now is that the environment itself seems to be a political football. So, if you care about the environment, then you should vote Green. If you don’t care about the environment, then vote conservative, and then there’s the in between,” Suzuki said. “Well, I told Elizabeth May, the head of the Green Party, that I cannot wait until there’s no Green Party. I cannot wait until I stop having to go to places to celebrate the opening of things like this,” he continued, “because this should be the only way that we do things. We need to be at a point where the values that are talked about by the Green Party are all values that Canadians have.”
It's clear that some NDP supporters put party over principle and will defend their party even when the majority of Canadians know that their deal with the Conservatives to keep May out was not right.
Great post! May has no place in the debate until the Greens do what the NDP, the CCF, the Reform Party, the Bloc Quebecois and every other political party has done - win enough seats for party status in Parliament.
And what's the cut-off for a "national" party with no MPs? Why not the Marijuana Party, the Natural Law Party, the Communist Party - throw them all in!
Lastly, what a media cause celebre - for a former Brian Mulroney aide!
Again, just to prove that people are putting party over principles here is "Bill Tieleman" joining the discussion complaining that the Greens shouldn't be in the debates because they don't have an "elected" seat. At the same time I'm willing to bet this man supports the NDP or a PR system. I'm sure the author of this blog supports these two things.
We all know that under a PR system the Greens would have seats in parliament. However, because it suits the NDP purpose to bash the Greens, they'll bring up the fact that they only have 1 seat.. not elected as Green. Well.. that's true. They have 1 seat in an UNFAIR ELECTORAL SYSTEM. How can we use the fact that they have only one seat, and at the same time acknowledge that the electoral system is unfair? If you acknowledge the latter.. then wanting May out of the debates because of the # of seats they have only means you want to maintain this unfair system when it suits your needs.
Do the NDP want PR or not? If so, cut out the crap about Greens only having one seat...because we all know this is based on an unfair system.
Wow. I've never seen so many Dippers threatened by the GPC before.
Before May was in the debates, I'd hear faint praise for the party's principles from New Dems.
Now, posts like these show how un-cooperative and partisan Dippers really are. Kinda like watching rats with their backs against the wall...
The good news is this: most Canadians support May being in the debate. And by "most" I'm talking about support in the 60-70% range. And those are from people who are open to hearing May speak about her party.
And what do you know, now the media is starting to cover their policy announcements: like today's which states that the GPC would like to cut Student federal loan rebates in half and, increase transfer payments to the provinces to support post-secondary education - especially in areas of eco-friendly technologies, small businesses and entrepreneurial ventures.
The GPC has what Dippers really want: untapped potential and unknown momentum. Who knows how well they'll do with the debate exposure? Who knows what will unravel for them after their first election?
I thought the New Democrats were interested in BRINGING DOWN HARPER - not cozying up to Harper's debate policy. I thought New Democrats wanted to see as many progressives in parliament as they could? I thought the Dippers would prefer to work with Greens in the HoC? I thought, ultimately, that a Harper defeat would put smiles on the faces of New Democrats and that a Liberal minority would give your party back the bargaining power you seek in parliament.
Calling the GPC and LPC the same party is like me calling the CCF-NDP the same as the Marxist-Leninist Party or Communist party. It's wrong. It's not true. And I'd be an idiot to ignore the differences and buy into the stigma without doing my own investigation.
And lastly, for the um-teenth time - the consortium's rule was not that the GPC needed an ELECTED seat to be in the debates: they simply needed representation in the 39th Parliament. How long are Dippers going to IGNORE that? How long are you going to interpret a their rule incorrectly?
You might claim that they SHOULD be elected, but that is not what the consoritum said was needed. Period.
Oh, and by the "elected" standard, the Bloc nor the Reform party should have been at the 93 debate. But they were. And aren't we glad for it?
By saying that the GPC shouldn't be there and NEITHER the Bloc is ridiculous. They're there. Too bad. If you don't like it, maybe contact the consortium and pressure them to exclude BOTH the parties you don't deem fit to address the nation.
We'll see how that goes.
Just to reiterate the theme expressed in the blog posting that not all Green Party members are left-of-centre, I can attest to that from personal experience. Almost 15 years ago I belonged to a municipal green party in Montreal called Ecology Montreal. Most of us were left-of-centre verging toward libertarian municipalists (a left-wing social anarchist grouping). We always had contacts in the Parti Vert du Quebec and the federal Green Party trying to entice us municipalists to support their electoral campaigns in return they'd support ours. We were always weary of their kindness, because, as some of us surmised, they weren't all leftists.
I went to one of their federal party conventions back in '94 as an observer for Ecology Montreal and had lovely debates with some of them, but never joined their party at their behest. I was too principled; these guys sounded like Red Tories at best and Reformers at worst.
Anyway, I usually hold my nose and vote for the best candidate who has a chance of blocking a Tory from winning.
I dont know whats up with you people who seem to be representing the NDP. I dont want to be in the same club as you. You do represent our values.
Harp on Harper but stop putting down Elizabeth May. She is presenting issues that affects us all in a big way and the Green"s policies are very similar to the NDPs.
Great post. On the CBC, Elizabeth described her party as conservative. By no stretch is she left-wing.
exactly, anonymous.
The party full of religious right-wingers. The "sue Buckdog" is a mere example (the dumping of Kevin Potvin another) of the repressive ideology of this party.
Don't be fooled, these evangelicals with Mayniak at the helm, are right-wing.
http://bcdawg.blogspot.com/
Hi Eric,
If I understand correctly, the Greens use progressive terminology to describe their platform and policies even if these are not so progressive. It minds me everytime I drive by the Jews-for-Jesus synagogue, I am told that the worshippers use Jewish terminology and practices to worship Christian beliefs. Orthodox Jews state that the Jews for Jesus are not real Jews.
While many Greens may have progressive beliefs, some Greens only use progressive terminology.
While many Greens may have progressive beliefs, some Greens only use progressive terminology.
Good observation!
They're paying the very same lipservice as the Liberals have done for years; lot's of progressive talk, very little action.
I've always said that most Liberals are far from progressive, because if they really were Canada wouldn't be were it is today.
Liberals and their neo-corporatist agenda are not much different from the Conservatives either; only the lipservice differs.
Conservative lipservice = mainstream right of centre + conservative base
Liberal lipservice = mainstream left of centre + liberal base
Mayniak's lipservice = mainstream left of centre and green base
That's as far as LIPSERVICE goes, the REALITY is a lot different, or should I say more of the same?
Conservative agenda: neo-liberal
Liberal agenda: neo-liberal
Mayniak's agenda: neo-liberal
As long as you believe neo-liberalism is progress, you're alright I suppose...
I used to have some respect for the NDP and still do want to see some representation in the house. However, I now realize that they essentially a partisan party. The NDP's antics in during the 2007 London by-election, where they were destroying Green signs and scaring voters, were despicable. The NDP 'belief that we shouldn't even be in Afghanistan' and subsequent support of the Harper motion to oppose an earlier end to our involvement shows they were only thinking about their own party. Now, Mr Layton's threat to withdraw from the leaders' debates show that he doesn't truly support democracy and his more worried about his own party.
The Green Party is actually quite progressive, and not just on the environment. Their position on foreign aid, the UN, marijuana and drug rehab are all leading edge. I would actually ask how socially progressive is the current NDP when they aren't even willing to put a price on carbon(considered to be crucial by most progressive economists and environmentalists). Their past subsidies to Ford, a company that was cranking out SUVs, was also questionable.
It appears that Mr. Layton and company are scared of the Green Party, and not surprisingly. The NDP knows that its ceiling is the left, while Greens can draw from all three other parties, young voters, as well as traditional non-voters
It's unfortunate that the NDP and Mr. Layton are not willing to show the same spirit of cooperation as the Green Party and to work together to defeat the Harper government. It is the overall approach to politics that is the biggest difference between the two parties. This in itself is all the reason one needs to vote Green rather than NDP.
To ml johnstone, your comment "...the Green"s policies are very similar to the NDPs" could not be more wrong. The NDP is quite clearly a left-of-centre party while the Greens are no such thing. Rather, the Greens are a somewhat motley group of people largely associated around one issue.
While the NDP promotes social democratic principles, the Greens often lean toward many policies we usually associate with (small "c") conservatives.
As an undecided voter, even I can tell that there is a considerable difference in the two parties' platforms and aims.
Perhaps its time you took a closer look, too.
[url=http://sunkomutors.net/][img]http://sunkomutors.net/img-add/euro2.jpg[/img][/url]
[b]adobe creative suite 3 student edition, [url=http://sunkomutors.net/]buy adobe photoshop for[/url]
[url=http://sunkomutors.net/][/url] discount language software new office software
christian discount software [url=http://sunkomutors.net/]reseller management software[/url] line software store
[url=http://sunkomutors.net/]microsoft software tracking[/url] place to buy photoshop
[url=http://sunkomutors.net/]software volume discount[/url] www macromedia com software flashplayer
buying software company [url=http://sunkomutors.net/]web store builder software[/b]
Elizabeth has gained the support of many many people on the Gulf Islands.
She represents for them,(us) "authenticity", an experienced knowledgeable person, very very intelligent and a formidable opponent and debator as well as "one of us" which is the alternative minded whole earth folks who are fed up with the same old tunes and want a change in politics and believe she can speak for them.
Many of these people are high profile Canadians and they WANT to see her in the house.They have pledged to support her. They include artists, musicians and academics.They believe she will put an end to partisan nonsense in the House.
I think that to these people Elizabeth is who they are voting for and not the Green Party.
She is a "hero".People respect her long time service and "informed"responses.
There is "no doubt" about Elizabeth and she is seen as tried and true.
Having said that, I think your post is fabulous.
Post a Comment