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

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home

This topic has been transferred to this forum: politics.  
next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » It's a go on Green

   
Author Topic: It's a go on Green
rockerbiff
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9273

posted 24 November 2005 06:43 PM      Profile for rockerbiff   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's a go on Green
P.A. Sévigny

Harris: Grass definitely greener on his side of the fence
photo: P.A. Sévigny

It's not easy being Green, but party Leader Jim Harris loves his gig

Jim Harris leads Canada's Green Party. Within months, Harris may be the one who will force Paul Martin's Liberals to place Canada's environment at the top of his government's priority list if Martin wants to continue to run the country.

Harris describes himself as a fiscal conservative with a social agenda. Over the past three years, he has led Canada's Greens out of the fringe and into the mainstream of Canada's federal politics.

Interview in the Hour


From: Republic of East Van | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 24 November 2005 07:02 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Harris describes himself as a fiscal conservative with a social agenda.

So he likes gays and pot but hates unions and is willing to cut healthcare to the bone?


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
rockerbiff
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9273

posted 24 November 2005 07:20 PM      Profile for rockerbiff   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Quote from Harris -

"It's all about winners and losers," he states. "Money that's going to the oil and gas industry is money that's not going to be spent on education and health care. The truth is that global climate change is being subsidized by Paul Martin's Liberals."


From: Republic of East Van | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
lagnaf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6145

posted 24 November 2005 07:25 PM      Profile for lagnaf        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rockerbiff:
Jim Harris leads Canada's Green Party. Within months, Harris may be the one who will force Paul Martin's Liberals to place Canada's environment at the top of his government's priority list if Martin wants to continue to run the country.

Does anybody know if the Green Party -- a national party -- will actually be permitted to participate in the televised debates this time around? Or will they again be limited to some of the national parties, and a provincial one?


From: Alberta | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 24 November 2005 07:27 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think someone made the point in an _earlier_ babble thread that the Greens will be allowed into the national debates when they actually have seats in Parliament.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 24 November 2005 07:39 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Which would be easier to do if we were actually in the debates .

Damn, I thought he was going to be on the Hour with George Strombolopolus. That would be cool. Oh well.


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 24 November 2005 07:42 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
-

[ 24 November 2005: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
tallyho
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10917

posted 24 November 2005 07:47 PM      Profile for tallyho        Edit/Delete Post
Don't despair. I saw my first and only election sign on a Calgary lawn this week: GREEN PARTY!!

It's obvious from this scientific sample that the Green Party is going to sweep Calgary. We don't need to be in a debate. Now that we're the front runners they'll have to come to us.


From: The NDP sells out Alberta workers | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 24 November 2005 07:56 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Reminds me of the scientific surveys that Royal Canadian Air Farce did over the 2000 election.

Interviewee: "I'm not voting!"
Anchor: "According to our poll no parties will form the next government"


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
rockerbiff
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9273

posted 24 November 2005 07:58 PM      Profile for rockerbiff   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'll wager there is more of chance of seeing the Green's in the debate, but I don't count on it, Jim Harris has more going for him than all of the other guys put together - they'll keep him out for as long as possible.
From: Republic of East Van | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
dgrollins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5268

posted 24 November 2005 08:22 PM      Profile for dgrollins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

So he likes gays and pot but hates unions and is willing to cut healthcare to the bone?


I interviewed Harris in early 2004. He described himself to me as a "former Red Tory."

The whole 'should the Greens get a seat at the debate' discussion has been done to death here. Basically you get the same three partisan NDP posters slamming the Greens at every turn and the same one or two Green partisans slamming the partisan NDPers for slamming the Greens.

It’s kind of pointless.

IMO, the mainstream parties have failed us for many years. The NDP is a mainstream party. That's my opinion. Sorry.

I voted Green in 2004 and will likely vote Green in 2005 too. I'm open to voting NDP, even Liberal. If the PCs were still around, I'd consider that vote as well. However, NONE of those parties have shown me that they deserve my support. I’m not hopeful that is going to change in the next 6-weeks.

It's going to be a nasty, pointless election methinks.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 24 November 2005 08:27 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I interviewed Harris in early 2004. He described himself to me as a "former Red Tory."

O.K., but what does that mean?

I don't trust him.

[ 24 November 2005: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
tallyho
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10917

posted 24 November 2005 08:54 PM      Profile for tallyho        Edit/Delete Post
dgrollins,

This won't be a pointless election. It'll reflect the reality of Canada and help to consolidate the move towards more regional autonomy. Government closer to the people. The BQ will increase its hold on Quebec and Alberta will feel more isolated and emboldened to create a firewall between itself and eastern based federal policy. The return of a Liberal minority, probably reduced in size, will make the Feds even less relevent than they've become in much of the country.

I think this is good for the environment. I like environmental decisions made closer to the people who understand the intricacies of an issue and not in far away Ontario.


From: The NDP sells out Alberta workers | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 24 November 2005 09:42 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The leaders debate is reserved for leaders of REAL parties that have real levels of support and some track record of being taken seriously. It is anouigh of a zoo to have Duceppe, Harper, Layton and Martin all fighting for air time without wastng oxygen by including irrelevant leaders of fringe parties like the Marijuana Party, the Christian Heritage Party and the so-called Green Party (should be renamed the Jim Harris is a motivational speaker Party)
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
sandpiper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10581

posted 24 November 2005 09:57 PM      Profile for sandpiper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey Stockholm, is there a percentage of support that you would like the Green Party to reach before they're included in the leader's debate? Or is it a one-seat and you're in thing?
From: HRM | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 24 November 2005 10:00 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I´d be willing to see them included if they took over 10% o the national popular and/or a seat.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
sandpiper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10581

posted 24 November 2005 10:03 PM      Profile for sandpiper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
10% seems pretty high, IMHO. What about 5% and a seat?
From: HRM | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 24 November 2005 10:06 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree 5% AND a seat - but with no seat I want to see 10%.

Speaking of the Green Party - notice that while a few Greens squawk about how their support provincially in Ontario is at 6 or 7% - but in today´s byelection in Scarborough-Rouge River they have a pathetic 1.1% of the vate and are barely ahead of the Libertarians.

I suspect that in the federal election they will be lucky to crack 2% - mostly from senior citizens who put their "x" in the wrontg place.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
dgrollins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5268

posted 24 November 2005 10:38 PM      Profile for dgrollins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
blah, blah, blah, same old, same old, same old.

As it relates to the Green Party the only "squawking" I ever see on here is from you.

What I find annoying, offensive even, about your attitude regarding the Greens is the underlining assumption you seem to have that says that every Green voter in the country is an ignorant fool who didn't give a seconds thought to his or her vote in 2004.

570,000 people chose to vote Green in 2004. Despite what you seem to think, they weren't all idiots.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 24 November 2005 10:52 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by dgrollins:

As it relates to the Green Party the only "squawking" I ever see on here is from you.

570,000 people chose to vote Green in 2004. Despite what you seem to think, they weren't all idiots.


No, some were merely stupid.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
dgrollins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5268

posted 24 November 2005 11:11 PM      Profile for dgrollins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:

No, some were merely stupid.


Perhaps your energies would be better suited figuring out why a half million people voted for a party that they knew had no chance of winning, rather than being a flippant ass.

It's not like a Green vote was funny joke to tell the boys back at the frat house--"guess what Biff, I voted for the Marijuana Party."

There are a lot of people that feel let down by all three mainstream English parties. A lot of them are parking their votes, yes. But they ain’t voting Dipper either, are they?


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
John K
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3407

posted 24 November 2005 11:15 PM      Profile for John K        Edit/Delete Post
Who's Jim Harris?
From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
sandpiper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10581

posted 24 November 2005 11:19 PM      Profile for sandpiper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by dgrollins:
There are a lot of people that feel let down by all three mainstream English parties. A lot of them are parking their votes, yes. But they ain’t voting Dipper either, are they?

I think a lot of them are giving the NDP some thought, yeah. And the Green Party too.

I've been a member of both, and am wondering: was I an idiot on the days I voted Green and smart on the days I voted NDP? All this dismissal of the Green Party is making me think they're the underdog. And I always root for the underdog.


From: HRM | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hawkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3306

posted 24 November 2005 11:34 PM      Profile for Hawkins     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Green Party gets free advertising as long as they aren't in the debate! Why would you WANT to give that up? Plus its all positive "just the little guy" advertising. Heaven forbid they are allowed into the debate and open to real public scrutiny at their policies (which I don't think are so cutesy as they appear to be).
From: Burlington Ont | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 25 November 2005 12:22 AM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've skimmed the Foreign Policy and found it surpisingly mature... There are some points that I could quibble on, very similar to the NDP points, but other then that, I find that they have very strong ideas about where they would like to see the CF go.

One point that I would strongly disagree with tho, is pegging military procurments to homegrown answers. We killed our defense industry when we killed the Arrow. For us to build our own transport planes and helicopters (the two biggest items we should (IMHO) be looking at) it would takes years, if not decades to get it up and running again. Make no mistake, I beleive we would make a superior product, it's just that after decades of neglect, we need the equipment now.

I will study the policies in more depth next week, as I have to go out in the woods this weekend. I'll leave on this note... In the feeling of this thread, I would welcome Mr Harris to the debate (if only I could). I would like to hear more of what he has to say.

[ 25 November 2005: Message edited by: Reason ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 25 November 2005 02:08 AM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think progressive Greens would have more credibility with a leader like Jim Harris if he said things like "fiscally responsible, with a social agenda" not "fiscally conservative with a social agenda". Granted, if they appeal to potential Liberal and Conservative voters by doing that I won't mind, but fiscal conservatism isn't progressive fiscal responsibility is.

[ 25 November 2005: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 25 November 2005 03:58 AM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by dgrollins:

IMO, the mainstream parties have failed us for many years. The NDP is a mainstream party. That's my opinion. Sorry.

Well, IMO, the mainstream parties would be forced to be better (or in the case of NDP provincial governments, more often *allowed* to be better) if the mainstream *media* hadn't been failing us for many years. Nothing personal, mr. mainstream media man, that's my opinion. Sorry.

And whether the mainstream parties have failed or not, and whether the federal NDP can be considered a mainstream party or not, or can be considered to have failed when despite never having been given the chance to govern it has been the source of many of the best ideas in Canadian governance, that doesn't mean a nonmainstream party should automatically get a pass. You still need to look at what it stands for. Personally, while I like the idea of Green parties in general, I don't have much time for the federal Canadian Green party in specific, and especially for their current leader. He's too right wing, which is a problem for me both in general and specifically in the context of trying to be environmentalist. Capitalism, whatever its other features, is very, very difficult to disentangle from incentives to exploit and destroy the environment. Accepting free enterprise entails accepting the basic impulse to produce more and more, create demand where it doesn't exist, and just generally grow beyond the land's carrying capacity. It also tends to militate very strongly towards short time horizons, especially when capital is very mobile. If the resource runs out in two quarters, it's not that big a deal as long as I make a big profit next quarter and then shift my money elsewhere--that's an exaggeration, but you get the point. All in all, anyone who claims to be Green and also claims to be otherwise fairly right, into capitalism and free markets and whatnot, has an incoherent ideology. He cannot genuinely serve both agendas, as they are fundamentally opposed. He may be able to fool himself into thinking he can--but it is ultimately a delusion. And frankly, if ever forced to make the choice between capital and the environment, it strikes me that this Harris guy would choose capital.

If there were a Green party that recognized the necessity for popular and public action and control if the environment is to be saved, a red Green party, then I'd have to think seriously about it. But then, with Layton at the helm, the NDP is that party already. Layton seems to me to have a much stronger environmental analysis and deeper environmental knowledge than Harris.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
dgrollins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5268

posted 25 November 2005 06:49 AM      Profile for dgrollins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus Polson:
[QB]

Well, IMO, the mainstream parties would be forced to be better (or in the case of NDP provincial governments, more often *allowed* to be better) if the mainstream *media* hadn't been failing us for many years. Nothing personal, mr. mainstream media man, that's my opinion. Sorry.


I know. It's always the media's fault. Don't self-reflect, blame those bastards in the Corporate MSM (or, if you are from the opposite side of the debate, those bastards in the Liberal MSM).

Then again what do I know—I write sports….

Edited to add:

The rest of your post is fine. Great, even. I'm not suggesting people should vote for the Green Party because the logo is pretty. What I am sick of is the condescending attitude that a Green vote in 2004 was done out of ignorance.

Personally, I very much looked at all the party platforms before making my vote. None of them spoke to me. The Green's--although not perfect--actually represented the best fit for me.

I'd like to see the party fully enter the debate (I'm referring to the more global debate of an election campaign, rather than simply a once-off televised debate) so that people can have a good look at the party's ideas.

Most Canadians have tuned out of the predictable rhetoric that comes from the right and the left. A new voice in the debate might, at the very least, bring more people back into the discussion.

The more people paying attention the better off it is for all parties.

And, lastly, the NDP most certainly has had an opportunity to govern--provincially.

[ 25 November 2005: Message edited by: dgrollins ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
The Baboon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8558

posted 25 November 2005 07:34 AM      Profile for The Baboon        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins:
The Green Party gets free advertising as long as they aren't in the debate! Why would you WANT to give that up? Plus its all positive "just the little guy" advertising. Heaven forbid they are allowed into the debate and open to real public scrutiny at their policies (which I don't think are so cutesy as they appear to be).

You can't seriously suggest that the Green Party would become less visible to voters by appearing in the debate. The media gives the least attention to the Greens that they credibly can, to claim otherwise is just an outright lie. You might not like the message but in 2004 half a million people did enough to vote for them. The ideas are not so out there, their leader is a decent speaker and their platform was progressive, fiscally responsible and emphasized the environment. And they are addressing a serious deficit in our politics - the lack of focus on the most important political issue of all, preventing the destruction of our Earth. If we had a fair voting system they'd have won seats. The Greens do not get the attention they deserve.

[ 25 November 2005: Message edited by: The Baboon ]


From: Interior British Columbia | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 25 November 2005 07:17 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by dgrollins:

I know. It's always the media's fault.

Glad you agree.
But really--if you're going to be catty and reductive, I don't see how you can blame other people for doing the same.
Oh, wait a minute--it's different when it's *your* ox that's being gored.

quote:
Then again what do I know—I write sports….

I suspect any pressures to stick to mainstream political frames or views, to cover or not cover certain stories, are not at their most prominent in sports coverage.

quote:

And, lastly, the NDP most certainly has had an opportunity to govern--provincially.

Well, yes. And I would argue that with the exception of a guy who mainly governed like, held the principles of, and later joined, the Liberals (Rae), those provincial governments have generally been pretty good.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 25 November 2005 08:25 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Look, I want a Greenie in parliment. Just not Harris. I suspect that despite his professed love for the biosphere, he has far to much in common with Paul Martin.

quote:
The rest of your post is fine. Great, even. I'm not suggesting people should vote for the Green Party because the logo is pretty. What I am sick of is the condescending attitude that a Green vote in 2004 was done out of ignorance.

[ 28 November 2005: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 25 November 2005 11:49 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
Look, I want a Greenie in parliment.
-
Look, I don't want a Greenie in Parliament - ever.

From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hawkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3306

posted 26 November 2005 04:12 AM      Profile for Hawkins     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by The Baboon:

You can't seriously suggest that the Green Party would become less visible to voters by appearing in the debate. The media gives the least attention to the Greens that they credibly can, to claim otherwise is just an outright lie. You might not like the message but in 2004 half a million people did enough to vote for them. The ideas are not so out there, their leader is a decent speaker and their platform was progressive, fiscally responsible and emphasized the environment. And they are addressing a serious deficit in our politics - the lack of focus on the most important political issue of all, preventing the destruction of our Earth. If we had a fair voting system they'd have won seats. The Greens do not get the attention they deserve.

[ 25 November 2005: Message edited by: The Baboon ]


It was a joke. At least partly. But for Ontario voters the Green party does get a free ride in the media. They don't get a lot of coverage, but any that they do get is often favourable for the Greens. I did some canvassing in Burlington, those who voted "Green" weren't doing it because they believed in any serious environmentalism. They parked their vote their because they liked the little guy and didn't like main stream politics (a lot of said "Greens" actually identified themselves as Conservatives who didn't like Harper). This is not "scientific" but its a reflection of my serious intent.

Greens have a tendency to think they have the corner market in environmentalism. And they get that presentation in the media, when they do make the media. If they were given fair coverage, it would mean that their policies would have to be scrutanized. What is the impact of a Green healthcare policy? What is the impact of the Green Party's policy towards Tibet (I don't think we need to debate the severity of problems facing Tibet, but what is the best way of dealing with this situation)?

This was the real, non sarcastic, point.


From: Burlington Ont | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 26 November 2005 10:50 AM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by dgrollins:


Personally, I very much looked at all the party platforms before making my vote. None of them spoke to me. The Green's--although not perfect--actually represented the best fit for me.


You see, that's the part I don't understand. Seems to me that as Vansterdam Kid pointed out, the NDP are also fiscally responsible (vs conservative), with a social agenda, and I'm not sure I understand how the Green fiscal agenda is any better than the NDP fiscal agenda.

What policy difference is it for you that makes the difference which puts you over the edge where you would throw your vote to a party without any seats and hardly a chance to get any, vs voting for a party with seats and an opportunity for balance of power?


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
centrelib
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11151

posted 27 November 2005 05:10 PM      Profile for centrelib     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Brilliant. Its nice to see the Green Party making a real go of it.
From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 28 November 2005 12:52 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

Look, I don't want a Greenie in Parliament - ever.


Not even me? I'm hurt Boom Boom, very hurt.

[ 28 November 2005: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 28 November 2005 01:17 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:
Not even me? I'm hurt Boom Boom, very hurt.
-
I think you'll find a better home in the NDP. Better environmental and economic sense, too, and by far a stronger willingness to fight the privatization of medicare. I'm sorry if you took my post personally, but I look completely askance at the Green Party internationally.

From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
scott
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 637

posted 28 November 2005 01:39 PM      Profile for scott   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:
What policy difference is it for you that makes the difference which puts you over the edge where you would throw your vote to a party without any seats and hardly a chance to get any, vs voting for a party with seats and an opportunity for balance of power?

It is a matter of emphasis.

The Green party puts a healthy environment at the core of their policies.

On paper the NDP has fairly good policies on the environment, but often they are fairly far down the priority scale and subject to job protection and other issues.

Strong Green parties are needed to force other parties to give incresed emphasis to the environment in their own platforms.

Green parties get strength in the same way that all the other parties do - when people vote for them - whether they have a chance to win a seat or not.


From: Kootenays BC | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 28 November 2005 01:50 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm was just joking Boom Boom. I forgot to add the all-important sarcastic smiley, my bad
From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
tallyho
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10917

posted 28 November 2005 01:55 PM      Profile for tallyho        Edit/Delete Post
The Greens are doing their job when the other parties respond: 'No don't vote Green, we have a strong environmental policy, you should vote for us.' I'm sure a big topic around NDP tables in B.C. is how to emphasize the environmental policy in the next provincial election to attract the Green vote.

In the federal debates the environment is going to be brought up proactively by the leaders in their opening and closing remarks.


From: The NDP sells out Alberta workers | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 28 November 2005 02:00 PM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by scott:
On paper the NDP has fairly good policies on the environment, but often they are fairly far down the priority scale and subject to job protection and other issues.

So would it be better to simply ignore any negative impacts that may come from the enviromental policies? It's not enough to simply say, "we're going to protect the environment" without considering the full impacts. If we just move in and implement environmental policies that cost people jobs, that will reduce support for environmental causes. There are several initiatives that have protected the environment while preserving/creating jobs and having a good economy.


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
rockerbiff
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9273

posted 28 November 2005 03:07 PM      Profile for rockerbiff   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This election is going to an interesting one for the Greens, mainly because it will be the first election ever that the Green Party has a bit [not a lot] of money to pass along to its candidates.

The $1.75 per year from every vote has made a difference on how the GPC runs itself. Will it transfer to more votes ? I believe it will.

Does Jim Harris deserve to get on the televised debate, he should but the other parties will do whatever they can do stop it since there is no fixed criteria for adding another player at the table. Keep in mind adding another leader decreases the time alloted for all existing leaders.

Here in BC Adriane Carr got on the 2001 tv debate and the vote went up to 12.4%, again in 2005 GPBC received 9% and Carr had a much better performance. TV debates are a necessity for any party.

Keep in mind that even with 5% parties can elect MP's or MLA's and it is only because of our ancient voting system that puts a damper that reality. There are Green Parties around the world with elected members where some kind of proportional system in place.

[ 28 November 2005: Message edited by: rockerbiff ]


From: Republic of East Van | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
dgrollins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5268

posted 28 November 2005 03:18 PM      Profile for dgrollins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No Yards:

We are going to disagree on this front....

I am not a fan of the NDP's policies as they relate to corporate taxation and debt reduction.

That said, I would have voted NDP (and will this time out if...)someone in the party can articulate to me a clear, viable economic plan that demonstrates that the party has new ideas that will address the economic difficulties that many Canadians face. To be honest, I really only heard rhetoric from the NDP last time out.

Since none of the other party’s has a truly liberal (small) social platform, and I could not come to grips with the NDP's economic platform, I went with the Greens. Part of what made that option attractive was the $1.75/vote it entailed the party. I would very much like to see a new voice enter into the political debate in this country. I felt that the money could assist the Greens to become that new voice.

Bottom line for 2005-06, I'm particularly interested in hearing how the NDP will encourage economic development in Atlantic Canada. I also would love to hear someone REALLY talk about health care. The NDP doesn't like the idea of private care in any form. Fine. I get that. But there are real problems in the system; show me how you are going to fix them (And I'd prefer if the party's plan went deeper than "spend more").


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
sandpiper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10581

posted 28 November 2005 03:18 PM      Profile for sandpiper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
West Coast Greeny, are you running? Where should I donate?
From: HRM | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 28 November 2005 03:31 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No (we don't have a candidate announced in my riding either) . I'm taking 5 college classes at the moment, I simply can't commit time to a campaign this time around. But you can donate from here on the GPC site under get involved. The web page to make donations seems to be down however.

[ 28 November 2005: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
sandpiper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10581

posted 28 November 2005 03:38 PM      Profile for sandpiper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I always donate to a particular candidate or constituency. I may help out a Greeny again this year. I'll just have to find one I like.
From: HRM | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 28 November 2005 03:43 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by sandpiper:
I always donate to a particular candidate or constituency. I may help out a Greeny again this year. I'll just have to find one I like.

Oh. Well, thank you for the compliment. I'll see what I can do. But right now, I'm working on the crushing amount of work from my afforementioned 5 college classes.


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

posted 28 November 2005 03:43 PM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by dgrollins:
That said, I would have voted NDP (and will this time out if...)someone in the party can articulate to me a clear, viable economic plan that demonstrates that the party has new ideas that will address the economic difficulties that many Canadians face. To be honest, I really only heard rhetoric from the NDP last time out.

Paul Summerville has done this. I've pointed to him several other times everytime this untruth that the NDP has no plan for the economy has been posted here.


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
dgrollins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5268

posted 28 November 2005 04:45 PM      Profile for dgrollins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Aristotleded24:

Paul Summerville has done this. I've pointed to him several other times everytime this untruth that the NDP has no plan for the economy has been posted here.


I'm not suggesting that a NDP government would mismanage the economy. I'm saying that I haven't heard and NEW ideas from the party.

At any rate, could you narrow that link down to a specific entry. Right now it just links to the front of his blog. I'd be happy to read the part that relates to NDP economic policy, but would appreciate a heads up as to where within the blog I can find that.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 28 November 2005 04:53 PM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by dgrollins:
I'm not suggesting that a NDP government would mismanage the economy. I'm saying that I haven't heard and NEW ideas from the party.

At any rate, could you narrow that link down to a specific entry. Right now it just links to the front of his blog. I'd be happy to read the part that relates to NDP economic policy, but would appreciate a heads up as to where within the blog I can find that.


Here you go.


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
rockerbiff
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9273

posted 29 November 2005 11:15 PM      Profile for rockerbiff   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
WCG isn't running, but I think he should.

However I am running and you can see my site at http://voteforian.com

quote:
Originally posted by sandpiper:
West Coast Greeny, are you running? Where should I donate?

From: Republic of East Van | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
sandpiper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10581

posted 29 November 2005 11:27 PM      Profile for sandpiper     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rockerbiff:
WCG isn't running, but I think he should.

However I am running and you can see my site at http://voteforian.com


Nah. I like West Coast Greeny better. Good luck though.


From: HRM | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
tallyho
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10917

posted 29 November 2005 11:29 PM      Profile for tallyho        Edit/Delete Post
I'm sure glad I stuck my Green Party sign on the front lawn yesterday morning and didn't wait any longer. winter finally arrived and the top crust has since frozen. There's going to be alot of 'wobbly' election signs around the country.

I've still only seen two signs, mine and another Green sign a couple days ago. The candidate in my riding, according to the sign is 'Green'. The same fellow ran last federal and provincial elections and it was convenient just to dust off the sign and reuse it.


From: The NDP sells out Alberta workers | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 30 November 2005 01:30 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't have any experience with the Greens here, so I'm guessing: where there's a close battle between the NDP and another party (Con or Lib), and the Greens are also running a candidate, isn't that likely to contribute to vote splitting, most probably at the cost of the NDP?
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
tallyho
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10917

posted 30 November 2005 02:35 AM      Profile for tallyho        Edit/Delete Post
Not in my Calgary riding. The Greens ran ahead of the NDP but I don't see the NDP as an irritating vote splitter this time around. I'm glad they are in the race. The more participants and voices the better even if they are like the NDP and looking at a 4th place finish. i admire their pluck.
From: The NDP sells out Alberta workers | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
TweakedEnigma
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10847

posted 30 November 2005 04:22 AM      Profile for TweakedEnigma   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What is it with people Bashing the greens, I for one respect them. I mean Im 100% NDP but think about it people right now at our best we are about 15% behind the LPC and the Greens are about the same behind us.
From: Fredericton, NB | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
retread
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9957

posted 30 November 2005 10:56 AM      Profile for retread     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Its curious that the NDP attitude towards the Greens is the same as the Liberal attitude with the NDP. Could be because bigger parties tend to think of votes going to smaller parties as misplaced - hence all the calls for strategic voting (Liberals angling for NDP votes, NDP angling for Greens).

Never voted Green myself, but if they got 570,000 votes last election they have to be considered a serious party. On the other hand, I agree with the 5% and a seat or 10% no seat before putting them in the debate.

And what's with blaming the media for our politics? There's an underlying patronism or even contempt for people in that - from my experience most people are actually pretty savy about media (that is, they're cynical as all hell about what they read and hear on it), and politics ... so cynical that alot of them don't even bother to vote. I've met very few people who actually believe what's presented to them on the media; most regard it as a kind of entertainment.


From: flatlands | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
stupendousgirlie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11076

posted 30 November 2005 11:11 AM      Profile for stupendousgirlie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I heard on CBC radio that the Greens will be in the leader's debates.

To all you Green supporters, I understand why you feel that the Greens should be there but jeez, that's five party leaders arguing with each other. With the existing four, it is nearly impossible to hear anyone take a position on anything because they are always arguing over each other. I'm sorry, but having the Greens in a national leaders debate means that the debate might as well be moderated by Jerry Springer.

CBC has to draw the line somewhere - four parties debating is dyfunctional enough. Adding another one does nothing more than make me want to watch "The OC" rather than the debate.


From: Wondering how the left can ever form a national government | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 30 November 2005 11:31 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is not news, it is politics.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca