babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » The Green Thing

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: The Green Thing
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 12 October 2007 10:58 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Michelle went and spoiled the fun in Greens in Ontario Election .

Don't know if we can keep up that stimulating odour here.
.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 12 October 2007 11:03 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
.
that was supposed to be stimulating aura...

... not stimulating odour.

sorry.

at Any rate... here's to stimulation.
.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Wizard of Socialism
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2912

posted 12 October 2007 11:27 AM      Profile for The Wizard of Socialism   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Really. I heard so-called greens don't believe in foreplay. Bad for the environment, you know.
From: A Proud Canadian! | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 12 October 2007 12:01 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, no. The Greens do believe in foreplay. It is actually quite good for the environment. The NDP wouldn't know that however, as they are overly obsessed with doing it to themselves.
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 12 October 2007 12:15 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
.

...to much of a good thing sometimes.

maybe Green Thumb appropriate here


... makes overstimulation less likely.

.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
N.R.KISSED
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1258

posted 12 October 2007 12:54 PM      Profile for N.R.KISSED     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Oh, no. The Greens do believe in foreplay. It is actually quite good for the environment. The NDP wouldn't know that however, as they are overly obsessed with doing it to themselves.

That's still more than the greens can do since they are forever dependent on the invisible green hand.


From: Republic of Parkdale | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 12 October 2007 01:26 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The NDP wishes it had an invisible hand, green or any color. Then maybe it would have something to talk to.
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 12 October 2007 01:48 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by KenS:

maybe Green Thumb appropriate here
... makes overstimulation less likely.

That all depends on where you put it!


From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 12 October 2007 04:09 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Where would you like him to put it?
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 15 October 2007 03:24 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Globe column by Mark Hume Want a green premier? Vote orange [available on-line only to subscribers]:

quote:
The Greens appear to be holding steady and it's a good bet the party will get about 10 per cent of the vote next time around. That's not enough to win any seats - but once again it could cost the NDP vital ridings.

Of course, analysts are always quick to point out that Green supporters can't be counted on to turn to the NDP as a second choice. Indeed, the party was founded in B.C. because of a deep dissatisfaction with the environmental failings of the NDP under former premier Glen Clark.

But the NDP has changed since then. It's time Green supporters took a hard look at themselves and the strategic importance of their votes. They are propping up a Liberal government that has compiled the most environmentally damaging policies since W.A.C. Bennett went on a highway and dam building spree in the 1950s and 60s.

A Green vote is a vote that will allow the Liberals to continue logging spotted-owl habitat, to continue pursuing coal-bed methane extraction, to allow hundreds of wild rivers to be dammed by independent power projects, to build half-a-dozen pipelines linking the tar sands and Alberta gas fields to new tanker routes in B.C. waters, to open offshore oil exploration, to build huge highway projects that will boost emissions while hypocritically promising to fight global warming, and to expand fish farming in the face of scientific evidence that wild salmon are suffering for it.

The Green Party believes its presence helps to soften the Liberal agenda. Last month interim party leader, Christopher Ian Bennett, told the Georgia Straight, in an astonishing interview, he was thrilled to meet regularly with Premier Gordon Campbell to chat about green stuff.

"The Premier welcomes me with open arms," he enthused. "He was fantastically accommodating, and he said, 'I'd love to see Greens in the legislature.' I want to work with him ... and I think he wants to work with us."

No Chris. He wants to work you and your party. He wants you there to hurt the NDP, not to help him green his party's soul.

Mr. Campbell likes to talk about tackling global warming. But at home he logs the habitat of endangered species, builds highways for more cars, and dreams of gas erupting from coal bed seams in the Sacred Headwaters of the Skeena, Nass and Stikine Rivers.

The Green Party, unintentionally but irrefutably, is helping him fulfill that agenda.

Mr. Campbell's government has been pressured by environmental groups into taking some enlightened steps. It saved big chunks of the Great Bear Rainforest, for example, and...

Green supporters can best prompt that change by shifting their allegiance from a party that dreams of change, to one that can deliver it. Only when the Liberal Party senses its own vulnerability will it make the big, environmental policy shifts it needs to make.



From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 15 October 2007 04:32 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But the NDP has changed since then.

Gosh and so have the federal Liberals. Even Harper's minions have gone green. Wal-Mart too! It is a brave new world, indeed.

From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 15 October 2007 09:59 AM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by The Wizard of Socialism:
Really. I heard so-called greens don't believe in foreplay.

Slander!


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 15 October 2007 07:40 PM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Interesting article Ken. I hope it's not arguing along the lines of the Greens acting as spoilers. Sounds like the BC Liberals are trying to use the Greens as a means to legitimate their policies environmental policy. Gee, where else has that happened?
From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 17 October 2007 06:38 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I brought up May's response to the Throne Speech in the thread on that. I want to expand, and it belongs more here. Because the question is about what is going on, not about yesterday's show in particular. Here is what May said.

quote:
“We can swallow it,” she said, but that doesn't mean the Conservatives will get their way. “We can fight it case by case down the road,” she added.' ('Fight it case by case' [later] just happening to be exactly what the Liberals spin it as.)

quote:
Green Party Leader Elizabeth May said the environmental proposals are too vague to defeat the government on.

And I heard a radio clip where in reference to the environmental aspects of the Throne Speech May said it was "designed to be palatable even to people like me."

?!*

When I mentioned this Trevormkidd repeated the points about it's vague, you can't vote something down on "what you think it means" rather than what it says, etc.

He chose to focus on where I agreed that Harper was putting out the impression of doing something, but ignored my points that what is in the Throne Speech is not at all vague: it gives dates and targets that will enshrine yet more delay in meeting ANY greenhouse gas emission targets [not just dumpint the unattainable 2012 Kyoto commitment].

Harper SAID in the Throne Speech the goalposts were being moved back to around 2022. They also explicitly said this is the same plan as was announced before: which indeed had that moved back target, and the information that we won't even necessarily meet that one either! [Translation: we won't.]

There is nothing the least bit "vague" about this. Harper and Baird told us months ago this was what was coming. They just affirmed what we knew in the Throne Speech.

And at the same time they affirmed that none of this plan is going to come to the floor of the House in the form of legislation. So there isn't going to BE any opportunity to fight "it case by case dwon the road." ...which we also already knew was going to be the case.

So what is Elizabeth May waiting for? What in there does she think was "designed to be palatable even to people like me."

It's puzzling enough that she would want to strike such an overall conciliatory tone to the Throne Speech. I mean, there's the obvious thought that she does because the Liberals are and she doesn't want to make them look bad. But we don't know, there may be other reasons for that.

She could strike that conciliatory tone, but still call the climate change package what it is, in forceful and simple terms: "Simply unacceptable."

There is all the substantive reason in the world to do it, plus skewering Harper where he is weakest and bolstering the Green's signature issue. But no.

And then there is the Liberals- with whom May and the GP clearly compete for votes. She didn't have to say a word against Dion and his dithering. All she had to do was speak to the issue and she gets the all important bolstering of herself as the opposition on this file.

So what gives? It sure looks like sparing Dion from any further difficulties is more important than ringing the alarm bells about the climate change scam [which is not vage and has a simple message: more delay and more

Here is Trevormkidd's response to these questions I posed in the other thread:

quote:
The throne speech is enough to satisfy the overwhelming majority of Canadians when it comes to the environment. It is all hot air, but it will not be until the bills on the environment are being debated that Harper and the Conservatives will expose themselves as being frauds on that front.

I am also well aware that Harpers long term targets are crap, but considering the trouble most countries are having reaching their current targets, he can easily convince Canadians that at least his are realistic. This was a victory for Stephen Harper. Going into an election now would be a majority and that would be disastrous for the environment.


This looks to me like strained obfuscation. As pointed out, there will be no bills to debate. Maybe you didn’t know that. but May and the GP brain trust did. [And I’ve explained it numerous times in Babble threads about the Harper strategy on climate change non-action.] The gauntlet has already been dropped.

And the fact Harper CAN convince enough of the public his targets are good is precisely why we have to get on it. This isn’t rocket science. And BTW, so far Harper has failed twice to convince Canadians he is doing enough. He even failed after using the golden opportunity Dion provided and May affirmed [“we can and must make the 2012 targets”] to undermine the credibility of ANY argument for taking a more resolute approach to emission reduction action.

The government is still very vulnerable on this. He has achieved nothing yet [let alone a “victory”]- only stepped back and regrouped…. for the third time now.

And your last sentence is a complete red herring. The choice is not over having an election or not, there isn’t going to be one now. The choice is about whether or not to give Harper breathing room- although May’s concern seems to be the Liberals breathing room.

[ 17 October 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 17 October 2007 07:46 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree May appears to be singing from the Liberal song book. That isn't surprising as it appears she sees the Greens as junior partners to Dion's Liberals.

May, it has been pointed out, is a strong speaker. But she is very poor when she strays from the script. No one has a clue what is going to come out. For example, her comments when releasing the GP platform were great. She sounded strong and election prepared. Almost daring Harper. That was good.

And then she follows up with this weak nonsense. It is as though she got a call from Dion or something.

This is not a good time to replace May, but if she can't stick to a message for more than 12 hours then the GP must consider another leader.

In one way she has provided the Green Party with a higher profile but she undermines that with her amazing ability to put her foot in her mouth or to say one thing and spin around and say the opposite.

She has the capacity to destroy Green hopes overnight if she doesn't get control of her mouth and learn to keep to a message.

And I say this as a Green supporter.


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 17 October 2007 08:28 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't know FM. I suppose it's possible it's a product of her thinking on her feet.

But I knew exactly what was coming in the Throne Speech, and so did she. In other words, she's had plenty of time to think about how she intends to respond to it.

She can easily do a 180 on this- the media never takes notice. So we may not have heard the last of it.

But I wouldn't be surprised if that ever comes it will be after Dion takes the lead.

Mind you, how Dion could possibly do that on the climate change file is beyond me. He has at least done the bare minimum preparation by quietly abandoning his ridiculous "we can meet the 2012 targets, we did great didn't we" schtick.

I suppose that given how the Liberals have no shame at turning around and contradicting earlier positions, Dion could propose how we are to proceed now that we have failed to meet our 2012 targets.

But to do that he'd not only have to figure out how to make it not like eating crow. Plus all the useful planks in the rewritten C-30 were put their by the NDP [the Libs just contributed the "Kyoto in its entirety" part].

The Liberals are fine with stealing. But Jack and Nathan Cullen will move a lot faster than Dion can in affirming those. "Me too" on top of the retreat from Kyoto or Bust just will not cut it.

And I can't see him raiding the Green platform either. Not to mention that some of it is different than what the Libs signed on to in C-30. [As May contrasted it when she released the Green plan- "the Liberal/NDP plan".]

Not to metion that Dion has 16 plates spinning now, and ever fewer hands to help the rest of them from crashing down.

[ 17 October 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 17 October 2007 09:31 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But I knew exactly what was coming in the Throne Speech, and so did she. In other words, she's had plenty of time to think about how she intends to respond to it.

But that's my point. The day before she released a strongly worded statement daring Harper to call an election and then when he delivers the throne speech, which was no secret, she vacillates. What happened over that 24 hours? My guess is she didn't have her script in front of her. And that is something the she has to get a hold on.

It is as though she is a novice campaigner incapable of sticking to her own message even after a sip of water.


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 17 October 2007 09:51 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've watched Elizabeth May for a long time. It may sound like a paradox given a lot of erratic things she does, but she is shrewd.

She also thinks fast on her feet, and has no need of a script. Where she gets into trouble is that she is overly willing to wing it.

But she isn't winging it on this dynamic of climate change politics. She can do this in her sleep.

Admittedly I don't know how exactly to square what she said after the Speech with daring Harper the day before.

But I would chalk it up to changing her mind, not to winging it up because she doesn't have a script.

===========

ETA: There is also the possibility that the previous day's dare was when she was winging it. Like she got carried away with how she felt and forgot that it wouldn't be consistent with the planned after-Speech message.

[ 17 October 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 17 October 2007 10:00 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Where she gets into trouble is that she is overly willing to wing it.

Isn't that the same as thinking on her feet?

For now, I will politely disagree. If she were shrewd and she changed her mind, she would be silent. As it is, by saying of the throne speech, "ah, it was nothing!", she has undermined any benefit from the previous day's press release. As a Green activist, how does one reconcile the tough talk with the shrug? I imagine it would be very difficult.

And that is my point about the message. A message is only effective if it is consistent and others are only willing to carry it if it doesn't readily change.

I mean, wouldn't I feel like an asshole if I organized a bunch of Green (or potential Green) supporters in my living room, armed with the new platform and the tough talking press release, and along comes May to say, "no big deal" ... ???

I would be very unlikely to take a May message to the troops again.

This thing of running hot and cold and saying one thing and then another has to stop. Are you listening Green Party?

[ 17 October 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 17 October 2007 10:18 AM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The big secret: gushing over the Liberals, and especially Stephane Dion, is a diversionary cover.

Elizabeth May is a deeply planted mole for the NDP.

You heard it here first.


From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Wizard of Socialism
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2912

posted 17 October 2007 12:17 PM      Profile for The Wizard of Socialism   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Wo. We're through the looking glass now people. Black is white. Up is down. On a totally unrelated topic, say KenS, who do you really think killed Kennedy?
From: A Proud Canadian! | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174

posted 17 October 2007 03:40 PM      Profile for KenS     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Its not unrelated. May's parents scouted the knoll.
From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca