Just perusing through the Green party platform today and there seemed to be a few things missing.
First, there was nothing really credible on health care. It is one of Canadians' top three issues and the Green plan really showcases their inexperience and lack of understanding on this file. There was not one mention of how to address the shortage of family doctors- the problem that many Canadian health care woes stem from.
But there was an even more peculiar ommission.
The Greens say that one of their three main principles is "grassroots democracy" but nowhere in their platform do they mention electoral reform. Could it be that they have given up on fighting for proportional representation? If they haven't given up on PR, they have at least moved it so far back that it gets no mention in the eight-page document. Even their plan to raise the GST gets a mention.
A few words that do feature prominently throught the platform: Green tax Shift.
Yup. It's looking more and more like May and the Green Party are committed to their coalition with the Liberal party in a long-term kind of way. It seems like less of a Liberal/Green love affair and more like an engagement. I wonder when the wedding is. Day before E-day perhaps?
I also wonder how the Green Party base feels about all of this. Not the members who have caught a whiff of relevance and are now robotically loyal (even when May makes anti-choice comments). But I wonder about the people who were there before Elizabeth May. The people who have worked tirelessly election after election to bring democratic reform to the forefront. I want to know how they feel.
10 hours ago
Posts
15 comments:
May hasn't made "anti-choice" comments. Babblers (of the NDP variety mostly) spun some of her frank comments as that, but she was really saying she'd like to see a reduction in abortions in the same way she'd like to see a reduction in cancer treatment - due to lack of necessity.
You can still see the Green's electoral reform plans in Vision Green, it just isn't summarized in the short new release. I suppose they figured it was a "duh, of course we support it, so why harp on it" kind of policy.
I repeat:
I also wonder how the Green Party base feels about all of this. Not the members who have caught a whiff of relevance and are now robotically loyal (even when May makes anti-choice comments).
No spin. May said she doesn't believe in a woman's "frivolous right to choose."
Stop trivializing my reproductive rights with your spin.
A platform is where you're most important issues are supposed to go.
This might be off topic, but go to http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/09/17/prodigal-sons-and-daughters/ to see the transfer and retention of votes. You will find that there is little crossover between the NDP and Greens.
It's Paul Wells' blog if you want to know.
"Green Party platform snubs PR."
No, it doesn't. Proportional representation is in the Vision Green plan - that's a direct link to the PR section of the plan.
The Vision Green document is too large to fit into platform leaflets.
Some of the Greens' policies have to be left out of the campaign handouts, a situation which all parties, including the one you favour, face. However, the Greens' campaign literature directs readers back to Vision Green and there they will find all Green policies laid out and more fully.
Erin, you do a disservice to yourself when you categorize May as anti-choice when she clearly is pro-choice. She may have arrived at being pro-choice differently from you and the more vocal pro-choice women on the web, but she's there nonetheless.
For better context of the quote you're fond of, give it a read.
"There's been a moral dimension to this debate that's quite complex, and I think deserves respect. So I respect people who say, "I'm against abortion because there is a right to life, and the fetus is sacred."
I respect that, because I think all life is sacred. So, where do I come to thinking we should be able to have - and must have - access to therapeutic abortions in Canada?
It's the other side of a moral dilemma: If we make them illegal, women will die. We know this. It happened for hundreds and hundreds of years, that women would seek out whatever butcher they could find to cause an abortion to happen, and they would die horrible deaths, and the baby would die too.
So I see it as a moral dilemma, and I don't see it as a clear-cut black-and-white.
And I think one of the things I would like to bring to Canadian politics is to show enough respect to the other view, that we could actually have a dialogue about it. Because one of the things that is wrong about polarization is the language becomes a barrier to understanding.
So if one group of people say, "A woman has a right to choose," I get queasy, because I'm against abortion. I don't think a woman has a frivolous right to choose.
What I don't want is a desperate woman to die in an illegal abortion. But I also don't think it's right to say - Well, you see, you end up having this conflict.
What I'd like to do in politics - and I've talked about this in some other settings besides here today, because this is the first time it's come up in London North Centre - what I'd like to do in politics is to be able to create the space to say, "Abortions are legal because they must be to avoid women dying. But nobody in their right mind is for abortions."
I've talked women out of having abortions. I would never have an abortion myself, not in a million years. I cannot imagine the circumstances that would ever reduce me to it.
So can't we then have a different kind of conversation? What kind of programs and strategies do we need to have to reduce the number of legal abortions that take place? Instead of having this rather polarized and, you know, really, futile debate that only fuels divisions and makes both sides feel as they're, you know, in some form of battle …"
"So if one group of people say, "A woman has a right to choose," I get queasy, because I'm against abortion. I don't think a woman has a frivolous right to choose."
Being pro-choice means that a woman has a right to choose an abortion or continue with her pregnancy. In either/or situation the woman is not judged (such as frivolous)in her choice, but supported, no matter what.
Next, on pg 5 it lists the 3 main principles that underpin their policies.
2. Grassroots democracy: Citizens have the power; government exists to serve them.
Yet, nowhere in the 8 main GOALS FOR A GREEN GOVERNMENT is PP listed. So principle 2 is unimportant in their govt, say for the first 4 years.
* nowhere does the 8 pg document (calling it a leaflet is stretching it)make reference to the Green Vision document.
Let me repeat, May made explicit in this document that the 8 bullets are her priority.
I suppose that now that May is in the debate, she's not feeling too much of that "democratic deficit."
"But I wonder about the people who were there before Elizabeth May. The people who have worked tirelessly election after election to bring democratic reform to the forefront. I want to know how they feel."
I was there before Elizabeth May. I have served as the Democratic Reform Advocate for the Green Party of Canada. I worked on Vision Green and ran in two federal elections at significant personal sacrifice. I have consistently said that the strength of our democracy is the most important issue of all. How do I feel?
I feel that Elizabeth May is the one leader giving any attention to Proportional Representation in this campaign. She's the only leader who made democratic participation the cornerstone of her campaign launch on Sunday September 7th. At the Green Party campaign launch she lead the crowd in a chant of "vote, vote, vote" while the NDP rally chanted "Jack, Jack, Jack." On Cross Country Checkup last weekend Elizabeth made PR a key issue, even when Rex Murphy tried to gloss over it. I haven't heard Jack Layton so much as mention electoral fairness in years, not to mention his broken (and now ancient) promise to make PR his condition of support in a minority situation.
Since then Jack Layton has betrayed democracy by opposing Elizabeth May's inclusion in the debates, and then by referring to democratic principals as a "distraction." What happened to the NDP? What happened to Jack?
How dare you? How dare Jack Layton? Honestly.
Chris Tindal
How dare I? How dare Jack Layton? Easy with the melodrama.
Jack said that the debate over the debate was a distraction. And he was right. There is a lot of scary shit going down right now with the economy and the environment and much more. I want to hear what the plan is. Canadians need to hear those announcements. May's crusade was taking valuable media attention away from the real issues.
I feel bad for you. You obviously have blinders on if you think that May isn't just using the Green Party as a stepping stone.
And Saskboy, it's the fact that she wants to re-open debate on women's reproductive rights that I have a problem with. Let's talk about revisiting some of the human rights that you care about and see how you feel.
Chris Tindal/Crystal Ocean,
I really, really feel for you. I am not being glib here. Your leader has sold you out. A campaign platform IS the vision you take to the electorate. It IS the roadmap you take to the people for them to vote for.
Nowhere in Ms. May's "platform" does she even mention PR or any kind of electoral reform. Nowhere. That means that her deal with Dion to help herself in Central Nova is more important than helping YOU (or your local GPC candidate) get elected.
Ms. May has put political opportunism ahead of electoral reform. And the biggest victim of that is the longer term prospects of the GPC. For shame.
The Greens are a one issue party -- and that issue isn't electoral reform.
"I haven't heard Jack Layton so much as mention electoral fairness in years, not to mention his broken (and now ancient) promise to make PR his condition of support in a minority situation."
That was so long ago, I'd forgotten about that, but yeah, I remember now. Do any of you NDPers remember Jack back then? When you could claim he was principled?
Erin, May isn't reopening the debate on legal abortions, please don't be so silly. Oh wait, I forgot the title of this post. You're a satirist, right? That's what we're missing, right?
How sad people on here don't know what a platform is. An 8-page document - you think that's the Green platform?
Did you even visit greenparty.ca? Did you look at Vision Green? Or did you just read the flyer?
Is this blog a career attempt? You should try harder - people in the media are supposed to take in the facts before they comment.
Of course PR is in the Green platform, it's right here: http://www.greenparty.ca/en/policy/visiongreen/partsix
C'mon, folks! This is exactly why I can no longer stomach the NDP - you're so partisan. You know full well the Greens support PR, and if you really wanted to make PR happen, you, or Jack, would reach out and join with the Greens to make it a reality. Instead, Jack ignores the Greens, tries to keep them from the debates, and is afraid of even having dinner with Ms. May.
Is that prime ministerial behaviour? I guess if you're trying to replace Harper in the worst sense of the term, as opposed to taking the country in a genuinely new direction.
Enough with the partisanship. It's no wonder people are flocking to the Greens - because they have a vision for the country and they're willing to talk about it instead of sticking to adviser-written one-liners, and because they have been attempting to reach out to the Liberals and the NDP and anyone who wants to bring about a positive future in Canada instead of political games and in-fighting.
No wonder people don't vote anymore - after reading a blog like this one, what could they find worth voting for?
The Greens have had a carbon tax shift in their platform for at least the last two general elections. This is not Greens borrowing from Liberals, but the other way around.
During some face time with Bob Rae after the Liberal Toronto-Centre by-election victory, Dion made comment to the strong Green showing, suggesting the Liberals needed to take a look at what so many people were voting for. I suggest that one of the results of this was the Green Shift. (Perhaps you should be thanking your man Chris Tindal for doing so well in that election leading to this policy change and the subsequent tanking in Dion's ability to convey it adequately, with so many grits turning orange).
I would also suggest that more lefties get in on the Lib-Green love-in. As you said, we are in for some scary times, and perhaps we should paint them polyamourously. Time to drop the partisanship and unite for the sake of our country (and our children's country).
Polygamy for Canada!
Post a Comment