Green-Grit pact rattles

quote:

---

Jack Layton, with trademark piety, expressed disappointment that May has climbed into "the muck" with the Liberals. "If she wants to be a Liberal, why doesn't she just run for the Liberals?" sniffed his former aide, Jamey Heath. For the Conservatives, the deal is further evidence -- along with the Ottawa Senators' second-game loss and this month's miserable weather, presumably -- that Dion is a "weak leader."...

...Pay them no mind, Ms. May. These are the delusional mutterings of a dying cult. These are the custodians of politics as it always has been: stupidly partisan, pathologically afraid of innovation, mean-spirited and self-interested. Faced with a bold gesture -- particularly a gesture motivated by idealism -- they are, naturally, frightened and confused. But only for a moment. Too soon they fall back into the cynicism that sustains their tired, increasingly-exclusive little club...

...So why didn't May pursue an alliance with Layton, whose green credentials go back farther than Dion's, whose environmental policy has long been more progressive?

Well, she tried. She says she phoned Layton a number of times, but got no response. So she called an old friend, Stephen Lewis, to see if he would intervene. Layton has characterized this as "backroom wheeling and dealing," and accuses May of betraying her own high standards. As for his private meetings with Harper last fall (a relationship that has since cooled?) that was a noble attempt at co-operating in the public interest, of course -- a distinction that may escape outsiders.

"What the hell is wrong with Jack Layton that he can't answer a phone call?" May retorts, when asked." I don't understand this. He talks to Harper all the time. Surely, the shared values are much closer between the NDP and Greens."

Layton, however, has a history, a venerable institution and a fragile footing in the polls to defend -- not just a climate change plan. The Greens are competitors as much as allies. As for May, if her goal is electing a green government (and it is), cold calculation comes into play: Dion is more likely to become prime minister than Layton...

...May will have trouble beating MacKay, no matter what. But she really is doing politics differently, not just claiming to. She is fearless and Dion isn't weak. No wonder the old guard is closing ranks against them.

---

quote:

---

"It would never occur to their world-weary critics that May and Dion might be telling the simple truth: They both believe climate change is not just one issue among many, but the most serious facing humanity. In the face of so dire a threat, the old rivalries, even political labels, become secondary."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Life, the universe, everything:
Cameron W
Here's a thought, instead of just posting Green positive stuff all the time, how about actually responding to some of the posts in the previous thread that directly contradicted your posts. Otherwise you are just shilling for a party and not really participating.

---

LTUE, I often reply to negative misinformation about the Greens, correcting information when it's incorrect, but I certainly don't post Green positive items all the time. I mostly am kept on the run here replying to attacks on the Greens.

I like to post on other subjects too, but every time I pop in here there's a thread attacking the Green Party, and I like to share positive helpful information whenever possible. It ends up that after an hour here I never get around to sharing on or even reading many other posts on other subjects, some of which are well discussed by productive members of this forum.

So here I go again. Why support a party that has done nothing on the environment but talk? Why have a Green party at all if you will settle for so little, a chance at a seat for the leader? If this is not about crass power politics why so much focus on the NDP and not the Conseravtives who you pretend are the real target? Why pretend this is anything the same as negotiating parliamentary accomidations when the only best case scenario is a seat for one individual not improved legislation, electoral reform or anything really? Surely even the most blind partisan has to see that the two are worlds apart? Why pretend this has anything to do with climate change, when again the only possible outcome, even under the best case scenario is a Green seat? How does that get us anywhere on the issue in the short or medium term pre-election which might be more than a year or two away? Why do the Greens think they deserve some kind of special get in to Parliament free card? If the voters of Central Nova wanted an alternative to the Conservatives it was the NDP who was the next closest, why not get behind that campaign? The Star has reported Elizabeth May saying she was motivated by revenge on Peter McKay for destroying her old PC party - how does a Green feel about having the interests of revenge put before the broader interests of the Green party. After all many voters will hear the age old refrain in this. To stop the Conservaitves better vote Liberal meaning you may actually see less Green votes.

Why?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Life, the universe, everything:

I'm not expecting you to announce you are leaving the Green party but a little honesty and ackowledgement that this is not all cream and roses might be nice for those of us who were thinking of voting Green and now feel totally kneecapped by this self-serving move.

---

It's not all cream and roses. Our electoral system is failing us. While there is a long standing tradition of parties standing aside in byelections where a leader of a national federal party is running, and this agreement to not run a candidate in one riding by each of the parties is hopefully going to allow for a better representation of almost 700,000 Canadians who voted Green and didn't get representation in parliament, some are still viewing this as undemocratic.

It's strange that an attempt to work within a democratic framework - in an open and transparent manner - to allow representation of 700,000 Canadians in their government is somehow seen as not being democratic.

I've posted my thoughts on this in detail here, and here.

[ 16 April 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]

But, it is very interesting to note that the Letters to the Editor published in the Globe this morning were overwhelimingly positive.

Could it be that Canadians are simply tired of politics as usual? Could it be that Canadians are actually ready for a different style of politics, one that puts national interests and indeed the interests of our planet above partisan needs?

If this is indeed the case, this could be a very powerful development.

quote:

---

Could it be that Canadians are simply tired of politics as usual? Could it be that Canadians are actually ready for a different style of politics, one that puts national interests and indeed the interests of our planet above partisan needs?

---

I don't get how this is "a different style of politics." This is pure theater, without substance.

If Dion likes the Green Party so much, he is free to adopt some or all of their platform.

If May wants to run with Dion's endorsement, then why doesn't she become a Liberal?

If Dion wants to see Green representation in Parliament, then why doesn't he endorse Pro-Rep or another form of electoral reform that would help smaller parties like the Greens get actual representation under a fairer system?

I predict that within the next 10 years, Elizabeth May will be a member of the Liberal Party, and will either be a Senator, a Liberal MP or patronage appointment.

This situation could well result in an NDP win in the riding. The NDP is growing steadily in Nova Scotia provincial politics, poised to form government there at the next provincial election.

The federal Liberal vote in Nova Scotia was already leaking to the NDP. If just 30% more of the Liberal vote goes to the NDP than what goes to the Conservatives, then the NDP will beat McKay.

So if the Greens get 60% of the Liberal vote, the Conservatives get 5% and the NDP gets 35% of it, then the NDP wins the seat.

Edited to add.

By the way I followed your links. Those are some of the most substance free rah-rah writings I have seen in some time. Heck the young Conservatives of my day were more persuasive than that and I thought they were crackpots. I see the Greens really are the new Liberals I guess where style over sustance and repeating platitudes wins out every time.

[ 16 April 2007: Message edited by: Life, the universe, everything ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Life, the universe, everything:
Cameron W.
I see you couldn' bother to answer the pretty straight forward questions I posed. All you did was repeat a rather slanted platitude.
If this is how you are going to attract independent voters to the Greens that think this action stinks to the high heveans I predict you will be waiting a good deal longer for that first seat.

Edited to add.

By the way I followed your links. Those are some of the most substance free rah-rah writings I have seen in some time. Heck the young Conservatives of my day were more persuasive than that and I thought they were crackpots. I see the Greens really are the new Liberals I guess where style over sustance and repeating platitudes wins out every time.

[ 16 April 2007: Message edited by: Life, the universe, everything ]

---

Rah-rah - yes, substance free - not really.

The answers to your questions are in my posts on my blog. I know I'm subjecting you to some heavy 'rah-rah' styled writings, but they are full of substance.

quote: "If this is how you are going to attract independent voters to the Greens that think this action stinks..."

No, I am active in my community with people one-on-one in those efforts. I write letters to the editor to the papers and my writing style is certainly not the same as on this forum or my blog, but there is always substance to my words and message. I'm learning about messaging, and the most important thing I think is to be honest and give people credit for being intelligent and aware of the issues.

On this forum I mostly try to correct disinformation spread by some who are overly partisan and are really spiteful and fearful of the Green Party. I do my best not to reply to over the top attacks with over the top rhetoric, but I'm not perfect, and frankly sometimes I wonder if I'll ever be able to make peace with members here.

Sometimes I get caught up in arguments here with a few over-the-top people, but I try to remember that this forum is made up of members from all walks of life, and we all want what's best for our country, just some of us have different ideas of what that is and how to get there.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dana Larsen:
I don't get how this is "a different style of politics." This is pure theater, without substance.

If Dion likes the Green Party so much, he is free to adopt some or all of their platform.

If May wants to run with Dion's endorsement, then why doesn't she become a Liberal?

If Dion wants to see Green representation in Parliament, then why doesn't he endorse Pro-Rep or another form of electoral reform that would help smaller parties like the Greens get actual representation under a fairer system?

---

Bingo.

[ 16 April 2007: Message edited by: Catchfire ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dana Larsen:
I don't get how this is "a different style of politics." This is pure theater, without substance.

---

We will need to elect Green MPs to see the different style of politics that the Green Party promotes in action. I think a few Greens in parliament would be a great thing.

quote:

---

If Dion likes the Green Party so much, he is free to adopt some or all of their platform.

---

The Liberals are talking about Green Party policies, and I hope they, and the other parties, adopt Green Party policies.

quote:

---

If May wants to run with Dion's endorsement, then why doesn't she become a Liberal?

---

Because while Dion is apparently a nice fellow, and has worked hard on the climate file in his work, the Liberals have done a very poor job in so many areas over the years that May, and a great many other Greens and other Canadians, have come to realize that we need a new voice in parliament, and that is a Green voice.

quote:

---

If Dion wants to see Green representation in Parliament, then why doesn't he endorse Pro-Rep or another form of electoral reform that would help smaller parties like the Greens get actual representation under a fairer system?

---

quote:

---

On this forum I mostly try to correct disinformation spread by some who are overly partisan and are really spiteful and fearful of the Green Party. I do my best not to reply to over the top attacks with over the top rhetoric, but I'm not perfect, and frankly sometimes I wonder if I'll ever be able to make peace with members here.

Sometimes I get caught up in arguments here with a few over-the-top people, but I try to remember that this forum is made up of members from all walks of life, and we all want what's best for our country, just some of us have different ideas of what that is and how to get there.

LTUE, your efforts to communicate with me are appreciated, and I hear your criticisms.

---

Hey Cameron, what about me? I'm hurt...

I don't make over the top attacks- I even call people on some they send your way. I don't fear the Greens [especially since you often seem bent on self-inflicted harm], and I think its fair to say I make very measured criticisms.

But I get no repsponse. I didn't even get a response when I recently begged for one.

quote:

---

It's strange that an attempt to work within a democratic framework - in an open and transparent manner - to allow representation of 700,000 Canadians in their government is somehow seen as not being democratic.

---

I have news for you. If there is one party in Canada that has always been 100% opposed to ANY move towards electoral reform or ANY form of proportional representation - it is the Liberal Party of Canada.

quote:

---

The answers to your questions are in my posts on my blog. I know I'm subjecting you to some heavy 'rah-rah' styled writings, but they are full of substance.

---

The thing is there are no answers to my straightforward questions. None. If I take your comments that they are there at face value, as a voter I find it troubling that the Greens can't seem to distinguish between wish it were so and the here and now. There is nothing in those posts, or in those responses that says to me the Green party is actually interested in electoral success. It's all just pub night chatting up. I mean I remember those school days. Up all night drinking cheap draft and a few other party favourites. Someone says you know what the answer is to...and then they go into a big long diatribe throwing around $28 words and concepts. But the thing is if you all weren't so drunk you would realize it doesn't make the least amount of sense.
That's what I see you doing, either that or the Greens really don't care about the average working person and the real world concerns and aspirations we have. Frankly I give up even caring what anyone in the Greens thinks anymore. The peek behind the Wizards curtain this week reveals that the Green party is about as sophisticated as a grade 6 Friday afternoon dance and could care less what the average voter thinks.

[ 16 April 2007: Message edited by: Life, the universe, everything ]

While I recognize that since I'm an active member of the Green Party, and I hold a position on it's federal council, I only come here as a member of this forum to discuss various subjects and my thoughts, opinions & questions about those subjects. I am not here to represent the Green Party any more than any other member of the party who posts here.

So, I will continue to engage in discussions here, and I hope that if you want official answers to your questions you will consider contacting the party in order to get an official response. That is what you should be basing your opinion of the party on rather than media spin or random forum discussions by party members.

My open letter from my blog.
Comments welcome!

Recent video of E May on CTV.
Click on the 'watch this video' link next to the picture of Elizabeth May.

Here are a few excerpts from my blog article, written in reply to an email from someone here in Alberta.

quote:

---

I respect your opinion, and want to share with you that I don't see May's actions as treachery, as you put it. The specifics of this arrangement are that the Green Party will not be running a candidate in Dion's riding - a riding where there is no Green Party EDA or nominated candidate. Dion (someone that is not too popular in my neck of the woods) has agreed to not run a Liberal candidate in the riding of Central Nova where Elizabeth May is the nominated Green Party candidate. This has been called treachery and back-room dealing some wishing to label it that way. It has been called admirable, courageous and an effort towards co-operative teamwork by many others. Dion's decision to support May has been made because the Liberal Party wants May to be elected. Interestingly, many Greens, who are understandably shaken up, are asking 'why not just vote Liberal?' At the same time many Liberals are asking 'why not just vote Green?' To be clear, this is an agreement involving two ridings, and two leaders of federal political parties. This is not a wholesale endorsement of either party, by either leader, nor should it be.

A point of interest: Apparently the Liberal riding association is supportive of this arrangement.

Another point of interest: A number of very prominent members of the now dead Progressive Conservative Party (who are now Green Party members) were instrumental in helping May achieve a respectable second place in the London North Center byelection with 25% of the vote, ahead of the NDP and Conservative candidates. Last time I checked, those green conservatives and blue conservationists were fine with the Green Party's efforts to work above partisan lines.

In my short time with the Green Party I've come to realize that running 308 candidates in 308 ridings was nothing short of a miracle. For the Green Party to do this in two elections in a row was unbelievable! Here is the Green Party, a national party, with over 600,000 votes, 30% of Canadians supporting the Green Party and considering to vote Green, polls putting the Greens in the double digits, and no elected MP's. Then I hear that some might say the Green Party is a 'fringe party', but with a platform and policies that cover all issues, the ability to organize 308 candidates, and this level of support, one has to acknowledge that the Green Party is a force to be reckoned with.

I believe that it is our dysfunctional electoral system that has failed us through the years. While the other national parties have claimed to support some kind of electoral reform in the past, once in power they quickly forgot about fairness and equality. Elizabeth May managed to arrange a very high profile agreement, and the message it sends to me is that the old-line parties will have to change their ways or face the Greens head on. We will not be denied!...

...It could be wonderful if Canadians had a right to vote for every registered federal party, a right that could be enshrined in the Canadian constitution, but there is no such right. Like driving in our vehicles, being able to vote for the party of our choice in the riding where we reside is a privilege that we must never take for granted. We must participate in supporting our party of choice in ways above and beyond offering our vote. We must work to ensure that our local ridings are organized and able to elect candidates. I want to see this done more at the grassroots level in the ridings by the riding associations, and less by Ottawa through the National Office...

...I ask myself how my country came to this point and I look back on recent political developments in Canada.

What has happened to the Right? It became 'united', meaning that Harper and Mackay destroyed a Canadian institution by dissolving the Progressive Conservative Party and reducing voter options. Talk about back room deals and a loss of voter choice!!!

What has happened to the Left? This is now the Green party's dilemma. They could risk being possibly seen as the Party that split the Left (after it's already been split previously) and caused the election of a Harper majority. No, that would not be a good thing, but really neither would a majority under any other party right now. Alternatively the Greens, along with other progressive parties, can work together to ensure that progressive values, a healthy environment, healthy Canadians and a sustainable economy are made a reality. We are the electorate choosing our representatives - in some cases nonpartisan selections based on the strengths the candidate possesses. I want to stress that this is democratic nonpartisan politics.

While the Greens are neither Left nor Right, they do have to show Canadians why it's worth voting for them. There are so many reasons that we need the Green Parties in all of the countries around the world to continue to fight for real positive change...

...This was an open and transparent agreement, not a back-room deal. It was proudly announced with no effort to conceal or otherwise deny the agreement. This was a leap of faith in the spirit of kindness & hope, not a sin. Collaboration is not a sin, although some people including NDP's one time research and communications director Jamie Heath would have you think that working together isn't what Canadians want their elected representatives to do.

This agreement takes our dysfunctional first past the post electoral system and throws it back in the face of the political parties who've been unable to fix it. It allows Greens across Canada a better chance of representation in parliament. Democratic values have remained uncompromised. We've now realized the next logical step to the electoral system that our country uses. Unless some kind of electoral reform takes place, we will only continue to see more frustrated Canadians voting in long shot riding for a party with little chance, and more frustrated Canadians voting in neck-and-neck ridings where the fight to win power continues to take on ever more ugly form of partisanship that, in May's own words, "exceeds sense". Until Canada's democracy is reformed to become a truly fair and equal democratic government, I will continue to fight for real change, and I will do so through my efforts within the Green Party of Canada.

---

The frustrating thing for me is two-fold. First, the Greens are, originally at least, obviously primarily inspired by environmental issues, but the NDP has been fighting for those issues for years. And frankly, by all accounts, the federal NDP is seen as a true ally for enviornmental groups. There seems to be very little, if anything between the Greens and the NDP on the environment.

Second, the greens draw support from the NDP. I think they draw support from all parties, and will increasingly draw from the Liberals, but they obviously score well among people who care deeply about the environment, who are people who would otherwise be inclined to vote NDP. But the NDP is always in a struggle federally. There are few if any true media allies for a progressive party. And the fact of the matter is, there is always a pull in a First Past the Post system towards falling to a two-party system. That same system also ensures that the NDP has to get twice as many votes to get a seat as one of the two big parties.

So every election is a struggle for the NDP to get back into Parliament in sufficient numbers to raise the issues that matter to people like me and others on this board. Who will stand up for workers, for the environment, for public health care if not the NDP? I don't care about the NDP as a brand. I care about the NDP because it is THE progressive, left-wing party in Parliament.

So it is disheartening, if not absolutely devastating, that there is a group out there (of supposedly like-minded folks) that is seeking to draw away the one or two percent of votes that will make the difference between having a decent caucus that can fight for these issues (including the environment) and having a caucus that is even more marginalized by the media than is already the case.

You may retort, and you suggest in one of your earlier posts, that we would all be better off if there were a few Greens in Parliament. Maybe your response to me would be that we lose a few NDPers and we gain a few Greens. But we won't Cameron. We won't. No greens will be elected next election. May might have won in another riding, but she won't beat MacKay. I think if you look at it dispassionately, and consider who MacKay is, his role in the government, and voting patterns in the region, you will have to accept that the likelihood of her winning is very very small.

And in all other ridings, she has essentially told undecided voters to vote for the Liberals because we need a Liberal government. In any event, where is another riding where the Greens can win? There are none. The last two elections we were told that Andrew Lewis had a very good chance in Saanich. Last election he finished 4th with barely 10%. David Chernushenko in Ottawa Centre was widely hailed as doing well last time. And he got 10% and finished 4th. In Wild Rose, I think, the Green finished 2nd, but he was more than 60% behind the winner.

I am not saying this to be a jerk, and I am not saying this because I have partisan blinders on. I am saying that in our electoral system, a party with diffuse national support cannot win seats with the kind of polling numbers the Greens have. Even if the Greens won 11% or 12% of the vote nationally, they would not win seats, because their vote is too spread out (the NDP in contrast is concentrated in certain areas, and still has trouble converting votes into seats). And the Greens will not win 11 or 12%. They will win much much less of the vote.

So what I fear, and others fear (and Liberals hope for) is a situation following the next election where the Greens have pulled a couple of percentage points from the NDP by running on a platform similar to that of the NDP on the environment, and thereby deprive the NDP of a chunk of seats. So we have a Parliament with a lot more Tories and Liberals, and no voice on the left speaking out about the issues of importance to progressive people (including, not to sound like a broken record, the environment). And still no greens.

[ 17 April 2007: Message edited by: Charles ]

quote:

---

LTUE, I often reply to negative misinformation about the Greens, correcting information when it's incorrect, but I certainly don't post Green positive items all the time. I mostly am kept on the run here replying to attacks on the Greens.

---

Talk about a "dying cult." Eco-capitalism, especially that of the current Liberal and GP leadership, is quickly becoming to be recognized as a fraudulent feel-good exercise, and a crutch to let Corporate Canada off the hook.

The genuinely more serious ecology that looks to fundamental social and economic democratization, such as that represented by the NDP, is much more difficult to achieve, but much more beneficial for the environment and humanity in the long run.

That's exactly what May, Dion, Harper, etc. don't like.

As this thread title attests (and as any casual look at threads on this board) the May-Dion deal and basic NDP-Green relationship has generated literally thousands of posts. I think I've read them all (I should get a life!) and I think almost every angle hads been canvassed. Many of the posts have been thoughtful.

I'd like to state that the agreement between May & Dion to not run candidates in each others ridings is not a wholesale endorsement of either party.

NDP MP's are now stating that May shouldn't be included in the televised leaders debates. That strikes me as unsupportive of democratic ideals.

Also, a new poll has the Liberals and Greens up in the polls, and the Greens are at 13% in Quebec, a new high. Canadians recognize that the cooperation between May & Dion was a simple gesture in respect of each party leader.

I realize that NDPers are scared of the Greens, but to attack is not the way to reconcile differences. Mutual support might be a wise path to follow.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cameron W:

I realize that NDPers are scared of the Greens

---

I realize that the NDP is concerned about the Green Party taking support from the NDP.

As I've said before: thw wackier and more wobbly the Lizzie May Gong Show gets, the less concerned I am about the impact on the NDP.

But it doesn't make me any less peeved.

quote:

---

I recognize that the Greens will continue to draw support from all of the other national parties.

---

Kool Aid Antidote. To be taken when vision gets blury:

[1] The most certain thing of all is that the Greens will not be drawing support from the Liberals. The Leader's deal makes sure of that. Greens will do well to not LOSE Green/Lib swing voters.

[2] There is no traction for drawing support from the Conservatives. [Dissafected PCs are not lodged here, they are scattered across the spectrum.]

[3] The only place the Greens MIGHT draw any support is from the NDP. And that remains to be seen.

In severe cases further antidote is often required to connect with the reality that Green actions [Green platitudes being irrelevant] are going to have a greater impact on numbers of voters drawn to the Liberals than to the junior partner in the deal.

IE, Greens get zip; Liberals may pick up some loose change, while Harper waltzes off with the prize.

[ 18 April 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

here

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cameron W:
...I realize that NDPers are scared of the Greens...

---

To clarify, many of us NDPers are not scared of the Greens, we're offended by the Greens.

Offended by May's anti-choice stance on womens' reproductive freedom.

Offended that she is apparently using the Green Party to pursue a petty revenge strategy against Peter McKay for destroying her beloved former Progressive Conservative Party

Offended that she has hitched the Green wagon to a Liberal Party that has a terrible and detrimental environmental record, and to the current leader who was the Environment Minister during that appalling tenure.

Offended that she regularly insults and denigrates the NDP, a party that actually espouses and practices, and enacts progressive social and environmental legistlation and has been doing so for decades.

Offended that the progressive platform policies of the Greens appear to be directly cribbed from the NDP platform, then spun into some weird pro-free market bastardization of them.

Offended that with all this talk of "co-operation" and "respect" and "doing things differently", Greens continue to run against popular and effective NDP candidates in elections, bleeding enough votes away to enable Conservatives and Liberals to be elected.

Just plain offended. Not scared, Cameron. The sooner you realise this the better.

Dion is supposedly a "green" leader and was elected at thier convention on that banner. with this deal he has now effectively publicly admitted that he isn't green enough and needs someone else to carry that torch. Why, when Layton has pushed the Kyoto issue so forcefully, does Dion not give him the same "respect" he is apparently heaping on May?

Layton and the NDP forced the Clean Air Act into a rewrite and have successfully forced the other opposition parties onside to change it dramatically to be effective and immediate if it should pass, and has made the environment a fundamental part of our platform for decades. How is May any more credible than that?

Where does she get off whining about how none of the other parties are "not helping get greens elected" ? Where is there an example of another party helping a rival candiate get elected? What is the point of belonging to a party if you are going to work for another? Why not just join that party?

May also trotted out the thoughroughly debunked canard that Harper and Layton concocted a "backroom deal" in November 2005 to bring down the Liberal government and losing Kyoto, Kelowna, and Childcare in the process while talking over Ed Broadbent. Is she for real? This is so patently false it's offensive that someone that claims to be intelligent would be spewing this stupid Liberal spin.

My question is: Why is it so vitally important to have Elizabeth May elected to parliament that all the other parties have to drop what they are doing and help her? Why can't she do it on her own like every other candidate in the country? Why is she the saviour?

This will be a website and wiki promoting cooperation between political parties, including not running in each others ridings where Harper has narrow wins.
and am asking for help with design, tech support
and a petition that anyone can sign calling for leaders to work together to stop Harper Governmanets. Analogy: Conservatives are a huge bear and the other parties a wolf, a Leopard and a Mountain Lion. and a Drop them into a cage.
There is only 308 pounds of food. (308 ridings)

If the smaller animals waste thier energy fighting each other, the huge bear will tear them apart. Without PR, Harper will keep vote splitting us ad nauseum and keep being PM.
WE the "more progressive than Harper" parties could easily form deals to elect orange green, and red MP's all at the expense of the eco Holocaust deniers. This is totally standard procedure in France. This strategy of running 308 ridings while Harper laughs all the way to the bank is crazy - here on the wiki and the website is the beginning of a new beginning
in Canadian politics. here is YOUR chance to get in on the ground floor with the "heavesteve" movement.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Red Partisan:
People are still talking about the Dion-May deal, some days after it was done. Like it or hate it, it has had a big effect on the Canadian polity.

---

quote:

---

Dear Green Party member,

I wrote to you last week about the announcement that the Liberal Party leader and I have agreed not to field candidates in each other’s ridings. Since then, much has been said and written about this event. The media calls have been incessant and I know that you, as a member of the Green Party, are probably getting a lot of questions about it too.

We expected this historic step to be misunderstood and deliberately mischaracterized, and so it has turned out. That is why I am writing to you again – to respond to some of the more misleading commentary that followed the announcement and to give you some background that will help you to field the questions that will come your way.

Let’s be quite clear. This is a leaders’ courtesy and it is a one-off. We are not “endorsing” the Liberal Party. There is no “backroom deal”, no “hidden agenda”, no “ongoing alliance” – nothing beyond what was announced in Stellarton, N.S. last Friday.

Mr. Dion has not proposed any action in any riding other than his and mine and if he did I would say no. The Green Party will be running – and running to win – in 307 ridings across Canada, regardless of the incumbent or any other consideration. The Green Party is now and will always be emphatically opposed to strategic voting.

Once again, I point to our deputy leader, Adriane Carr, who is running in Vancouver Centre. We have made her victory a priority. She is running against the Liberal incumbent Hedy Fry.

Across Canada, Green campaigns must be stronger and better organized than ever before so that we can emerge from the next election with a solid caucus in the House of Commons.

Thank you again for your support and, if you’re still unconvinced, for your willingness to remain open to a new way of doing politics. To me, this is the essence of the Green Party approach – leaving behind the knee-jerk tribal partisanship of a worn-out political establishment and charting a new course based on cooperation and respect.

You might have read yesterday about a new Decima poll conducted from last Thursday to Sunday showing that public support for both the Green Party and the Liberal Party was up. I don’t want to read too much into one poll but it certainly is an encouraging sign. Maybe Canadians are ready for a change from politics-as-usual. I find that prospect truly exciting.

Elizabeth

__________________________________

We sent these Talking Points and FAQs out to our candidates and EDA executives last week and now we’re sharing them with you in the hope that they will be useful as you talk about this with your family, friends, neighbours and work colleagues.

TALKING POINTS

1. We have changed the face of Canadian politics

- We demonstrated that the Green Party of Canada is a serious player, running to win in ridings across Canada.
- The Green Party of Canada puts our country and our planet above partisan political games.
- Cooperation, not competitiveness, is our core value. The Green Party will always put principle and progress above petty partisanship.
- Stéphane Dion recognizes the need for electoral reform, which the Green Party sees as the need for proportional representation.

2. Elizabeth May continues to tell the truth

- When she ran for leadership, Elizabeth May promised to be a relentless truth-teller, even if that might be to a short-term disadvantage.
- Elizabeth’s experience with Mr. Dion is that he is honest, intellectually rigourous and thoroughly committed to Kyoto. She formed and expressed that opinion before he became Liberal leader, and she continues to express that opinion now.
- Elizabeth’s comments about politicians and their records have no ideological bent. They are based only on their records.

3. Both parties were motivated by wanting a better Parliament

- Stéphane Dion wants Elizabeth May to be in Parliament.
- Both leaders want more MPs in Parliament who recognize the serious threat of climate change.
- There is a tradition of “leaders’ courtesy”. For many years, Canadian political leaders observed a tradition of not contesting each others ridings. This tradition existed for decades and has included such people as John A. Macdonald, Wilfred Laurier and William Lyon Mackenzie-King.

4. This announcement doesn’t change the fact that outside the leaders’ ridings Green Party candidates will be running hard to defeat Liberal MPs and candidates

- We are committing to electing a solid caucus, not just one or two MPs. We cannot expect other parties to keep a clear focus on issues Greens care about – social justice, the need for a peace-making approach and independence in our foreign policy – or on climate, unless we have many Green MPs in the House.
- We have made it a priority that Adriane Carr, Deputy Leader, win in Vancouver Centre, where she’s running against Liberal MP Hedy Fry.

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

1. What do you think of this announcement?

It shows that Elizabeth May is telling the truth when she says we’re doing politics differently. We couldn’t possibly be where we are as a party if not for her leadership.

Elizabeth has, obviously, worked closely with Mr. Dion, especially at the big UN climate conference in Montreal and they have a good personal relationship.

The Green Party does not behave like other parties. We think there is far too much partisanship getting in the way of real progress. Greens will always put the health of the planet above short-term partisanship.

That said, we cannot expect any party to keep a clear focus on issues Greens care about – social justice, the need for a peace-making approach and independence in our foreign policy – or on climate, unless we have many Green MPs in the House.

The ‘first past the post’ system makes this a tricky message, but we have confidence in the intelligence of Canadian voters to figure out that they need Green MPs in the House, just as they know that the current government represents the worst of the old-line parties on issues we all care about.

2. It seems like in return for the Liberals not running in Central Nova, Elizabeth May said Stéphane Dion would make a better Prime Minister than Stephen Harper. Is this a deal?

This is not new. Elizabeth has said this before.

When she ran for leadership and consistently since then, Elizabeth said she would tell the truth. People have responded to that and it’s one reason for our rise in the polls. It reinforces that the Green Party is not like the other parties.

Elizabeth’s experience with Mr. Dion is that he is honest, intellectually rigorous and thoroughly committed to Kyoto. She said that before he became the Liberal leader and she still believes it.

Elizabeth’s comments on other politicians and their records have NO ideological bent. They are based only on their records.

3. How could Elizabeth say such nice things when the Liberals have such a terrible record on climate change?

An honest assessment of Dion is quite a different thing from praise for the Liberal Party. Elizabeth has serious concerns about the Liberal Party. That said, its position on climate change has always been better than that of the current government.

The Liberal record is really two distinct records. Chretien’s record was appalling and far worse than Mulroney, and Paul Martin’s record was weak but finally moving in the right direction.

That said, both Chretien and Martin, in contrast to the current government, advanced real progress at the international level. With only 3% of global emissions, Canada’s most significant role in the last 15 years has likely been in pressing the whole multilateral system to better targets. Under Dion as president of global negotiations, the world (or 165 countries inside Kyoto without the US and Australia) had moved to fast-track negotiations for the next round of cuts post-2012.

Mr. Dion’s announced Carbon Budget is a real strengthening of where he was with “Project Green” in April 2005, though they’re still a long way from the strength of the Green Party platform. It has hard targets for big industry at 6% below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. PLUS serious fees ($20-30 per tonne of carbon). It looks a lot like a carbon tax, which makes good economic sense. We’re happy Mr. Dion is picking up on an idea the Green Party has been advocating for a long time now, which is to shift taxes to discourage carbon emissions.

---

“This ad highlights Mr. Dion’s passion and strength of conviction on the greatest threat facing our planet -- the challenge of climate change,“ said Liberal Party President Marie-P. Poulin. “Canada’s Liberals strongly believe that by acting together, under Mr. Dion’s strong leadership, we can achieve great things for our country and our planet.”

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:

Doubt it. It's a flash in the pan. No one will remember or care a year from now, except for us junkies.

---

Well, I think it could very easily be made into a 2nd or 3rd tier election issue, and I think the NDP and Conservatives are going to do so. I don't think it's something so interesting as to garner at least 500 posts on this site except:

1) New Democrats are interested in Greens
2) Greens are interested in Greens
3) A whole lotta us are have an abnormal, some would say perverse, interest in politics.

I think I'm just going to grab some popcorn and see what happens. Looking at some valid critisms I'm not very sure if this is the right thing to do or not. I just know that I would have made the exact same deal.

quote:

---

Originally posted by NDPundit:
I was surprised to find this string of criticism and concern from Green party members on the green website.
Criticism on Green website

I'll grant that the feedback on the May-Dion deal is overwhelmingly positive on the Green site. However, I think this is to be expected. What is more surprising, given the screening process for being able to post to that site, is the criticism that you can find on this thread an others.

---

If there was never internal criticism posted on the party website blog.

1) There would be very little point in having one
2) The party would be less accountable
3) Opinion of detractors would shift from "I disagree" to "I'm being disenfranchised and I quit"

quote:

---

There is a tradition of “leaders’ courtesy”. For many years, Canadian political leaders observed a tradition of not contesting each others ridings. This tradition existed for decades and has included such people as John A. Macdonald, Wilfred Laurier and William Lyon Mackenzie-King.

---

This is a myth. Many party leaders have been defeated over the years and have been vigorously opposed. In 1945, Mackenzie King lost his seat in Saskatchewan to a railway engineer running for the CCF.

Here are a few other examples:

Kim Campbell losing to Hedy Fry in 1993 (I guess the Liberals were not so big on "chivalry" back then)
David Lewis losing in 1974
Tommy Douglas losing in 1962 in Regina and in 1968 in Burnaby-Seymour
MJ Coldwell losing in 1958
Arthur Meighen losing to the CCF in a 1941 byelection

and there have been many many cases at the provincial level. Rene Levesque was defeated both in 1970 and 1973 when he was leader of the fledgling PQ.

The very few times that parties have not opposed the leaders of other parties have been in byelections in super-safe seats that were made vacant for the express purpose of getting the leader into Parliament. Even in those cases you can bet your bottom dollar that if the other parties thought they could defeat the party leader, they would have LOVED to do it. Why not grab a valuable scalp??

In 1980, Grant Devine became leader of the Saskatchewan Conservatives and a Conservative MLA resigned to make room for him. The NDP contested the byelection and beat him by 50 votes!!

There is ZERO precedent of party leaders getting a free ride in a general election - and especially no precedent when they were trying to take a seat away from another party.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Why not grab a valuable scalp??

---

I know you're going to roll your eyes at me, but this kind of metaphor is alienating even if you don't mean it to be. Please don't.

[ 18 April 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

The Green Party will be running – and running to win – in 307 ridings across Canada, regardless of the incumbent or any other consideration. The Green Party is now and will always be emphatically opposed to strategic voting.

---

BTW: If Canada had the Australian system of preferential voting, this whole Liberal/Green deal would be standard operating procedure. Over there parties routinely make deals in exchange for being each others "second preferences". So in other words, you might have a situation where in exchange for some policy concession, the Greens might agree to print "Voter Instruction Cards" telling their identified supporters to vote as follows: Green 1, Liberal 2, NDP 3, CPC 4 etc... Often time in "Oz" parties make deals at the riding level so you might have Greens ranking NDP above Liberal in some seats but not others etc...

quote:

---

My party. Time to take a step back from being big time green promoter. Elizabeth May has sold voter's rights so that she can get elected ... for the betterment of the party and the world, she says. I say crap on that. Voters are the foundation stone of democracy and should never be sold short. I tell green brass that I'm stepping back from being active in the party. One of my last official acts is to be present at a green party social ... no body shows up. A burger and three beers later I go home. Why did I bother?

HERBINATOR, My week, my party, my bar.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark_alfred:
There was a panel on CBC Radio's The Current. Interesting stuff. Hear it at this link here!

---

Yes, it's worth a listen if only to hear Elizabeth May criticize the NDP (represented by Ed Broadbent) for "doing nothing to get Green Party MPs elected".

Two points:

quote:

---

Elizabeth’s experience with Mr. Dion is that he is honest, intellectually rigourous and thoroughly committed to Kyoto.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:

1. Why should other parties work to get candidates running for another party anything ever?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lou Arab:

If that is the case, answer me one simple question: Why not unite behind the party that came second in Central Nova - the NDP?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pogge:

Except when the party gets to decide on the strategy rather than leaving it to the voters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
CameronW:

Kool Aid Antidote. To be taken when vision gets blury:

[1] The most certain thing of all is that the Greens will not be drawing support from the Liberals. The Leader's deal makes sure of that. Greens will do well to not LOSE Green/Lib swing voters.
[ 18 April 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saskboy:
The NDP candidate from last time isn't going to run, and many NDP indicate that she's a "star candidate", so it stands to reason that a no-name candidate for the NDP who didn't win last time, stands a worse chance than May who is a party leader, and already has a lot of Liberal votes and star power.

---

I love it when someone reads/pastes from a prepared script!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cameron W:
Here's a recent article on this subject.

...

I wonder how the public will view this cooperation over the long term.

---

well I don't know about the public, but I have other things I will focus on at a local, provincial and national level;, like real tangible things that actually reduce CO2 emissions. I don't think arguing over the Green Party's 2% popular vote and its influence on the left or right will help address anthropologically induced global warming.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dana Larsen:

......
So if the Greens get 60% of the Liberal vote, the Conservatives get 5% and the NDP gets 35% of it, then the NDP wins the seat.

If 10% of the Liberals stay home, 30% vote Green, 15% vote Conservative, and 45% go NDP, then the NDP wins.

---

Chronicle Herald

Layton a hypocrite about deal, May says: "There’s something wrong with Jack Layton if he’d rather open up discussions with the Taliban than the Green party," Ms. May said.

Chronicle Herald

Local Green proposes deal with Grits: Former Green party candidate and St. Catharines riding communications director Jim Fannon said Wednesday he will ask local Greens at an upcoming meeting to pass a resolution declaring they will not field a candidate in the next federal election.

North Bay Nugget | Brantford Expositor

Dion's blunder will cost the Libs: The Greens will undoubtedly get more media coverage thanks to Dion’s dumb deal, but like Lucy Ricardo, May will have a lot of “’splainin’” to do ... The real bickering, however, is taking place inside the Liberal party where — guess what — the leadership race is back on.

Dear Editor,

...So, who to vote for in this election? Green party Maritime organizer Sharon Labchuk has stated no Green candidate will be elected in Atlantic Canada and with the increasing likelihood of a Harper Government hostile to the environment, the poor and supporting Bush's military initiatives it will be more necessary than ever to have progressive NDP members in parliament.

Layton's commitment to the environment, mandatory polluter pay legislation, and electoral reform mean this time I will vote for Alexa McDonough and the NDP. Hopefully on January 24, the environment and peace will have a voice in Ottawa.

Sincerely,
Michael Oddy
(Leader of the Green Party of Nova Scotia)

quote:

---

Originally posted by FraserValleyMan:

I love it when someone reads/pastes from a prepared script!

Can you maybe take us into your confidence and describe the outflow of material from Liberal HQ to various bloggers across the nation? Are there big bursts of material early in the day, or is it pretty much a steady dribble all day long?

---

quote:

---

- Elizabeth’s comments about politicians and their records have NO ideological bent. They are based only on their records

---

quote:

---

Layton a hypocrite about deal, May says: "There’s something wrong with Jack Layton if he’d rather open up discussions with the Taliban than the Green party," Ms. May said.

Chronicle Herald

---

oh George Orwell would be proud of you Elizabeth. "Taliban Jack", eh? and that's not ideological? And this is "doing politics differently? Here's a tip-if you insult people, you can't really expect them to take your calls. Just ask Buzz.

[ 19 April 2007: Message edited by: farnival ]

I hope these progressive hating dirt bags (May and Dion) don't get the result they are hoping for.

[ 19 April 2007: Message edited by: davidt ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wizard of Socialism:
What's hypocritical about that? Who wouldn't sooner deal with the Taliban than the so-called greens? I'm sure they have a higher standard of electoral democracy. They certainly couldn't be any worse...

---

quote:

---

"There’s something wrong with Jack Layton if he’d rather open up discussions with the Taliban than the Green party," Ms. May said.

---

She really is a piece of work isn't she?

I realize that people can get a bit carried away with their rhetoric. I have been known to do that myself posting on babble. But for a so-called national party leader to utter such complete trash really goes too far.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saskboy:

And that's what Babble is so famous for -- reasonable understatements of high caliber based on fact.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:

Yes, it's worth a listen if only to hear Elizabeth May criticize the NDP (represented by Ed Broadbent) for "doing nothing to get Green Party MPs elected".

Two points:

1. Why should other parties work to get candidates running for another party anything ever?
2. I thought this wasn't about petty partisanship?

---

quote:

---

Providing a counter-ancedote to your claim, I'm a former Liberal gone Green. I know there will be others.

---

I hope there are as many of you as possible and that they are concentrated in the following ridings: Trinity-Spadina, Toronto-Danforth, Beaches-East York, Parkdale-High Park, Ottawa Centre, Vancouver-Kingsway etc...

quote:

---

Originally posted by farnival:

and the reason you grace us with your high caliber insights is why exactly?

---

quote:

---

The NDP is supposedly for the goals of Proportional Representation, yet they won't consider working with other parties to achieve it.

---

can you please remind of when the Liberal Party of Canada has done ANYTHING to advance Proportional Representation???

Canada will get PR when the NDP succeeds in getting a majority of members of the House of Commons to vote for it. So far the BQ opposes it because they would lose seats. The CPC opposes it because they know that it would ruin any chance of there ever being a Conservative majority - meaning no neo-con reign of terror. The Liberals oppose it most of all. Hell they still support the Senate being all appointed Liberal party bagmen.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saskboy:
And that's what Babble is so famous for -- reasonable understatements of high caliber based on fact.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saskboy:

The NDP candidate from last time isn't going to run, and many NDP indicate that she's a "star candidate", so it stands to reason that a no-name candidate for the NDP who didn't win last time, stands a worse chance than May who is a party leader, and already has a lot of Liberal votes and star power.

---

This needs to be challenged repeatedly.

Saskboy is claiming the NDP vote was an Alexis MacDonald vote. That ignores the fact that the NDP support has been increasing in rural Nova Scotia for the better part of a generation. The NDP has two MLAs in Central Nova — neither of whom are Alexis MacDonald.

The NDP has built up support in rural NS over the last few federal and provincial campaigns. They now have an organization in Central Nova. May is trying to now claim ownership of that progressive base she had no part in building.

The NDP candidate, Louise Lorefice has real, deep, roots in the community. I'm sure Alexis was a good candidate, but Louise also looks like a great candidate. I'll take Louise's local roots over May's parachute from Ottawa anyday.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saskboy:

The NDP is supposedly for the goals of Proportional Representation, yet they won't consider working with other parties to achieve it. To your point 1., people from different parties can end up with similar goals in certain areas of policy. It's pig-headedness to put your party's name above what is good for the country by refusing to elect quality MPs who would improve the direction of the country. It's not always possible to get your desired party's MP elected in any given riding in Canada due to our electoral system, so May is at least trying to work out a way of correcting that.

---

But what of those of us who think Elizabeth May would make anything but a "quality MP" for a riding where she has no connection, no less. I find her arrogant, smug, a little dull-witted, politically tin-eared, genrally unpleasant and with an anti-choice belief system that offends me. Why would she make a better "progressive" MP than Louise Loriface? You say, "It's not always possible to get your desired party's MP elected in any given riding in Canada due to our electoral system", but here's a seat where the NDP are much, much better positioned to win the seat than the Green Party, so why is Elizabeth so selfish? Why doesn't she pull out and endorse the NDP as the best, most logical way to co-ordinate the "progressive" vote in that riding? Why does Elizabeth only seem to care about putting her own selfish ambition above the need to elect moe progressive MPs and take down the Conservatives? It's shareful, really. Why can't she think of the country? Why must she be so caught up in party labels? If only she had a broader outlook and put the country first...

(I see Lou said much the same thing while I was typing A good chance to add: I like Alexis a lot, but people keep calling her a "star candidate". She wasn't at first. She was a 20-something candidate with little experience and little name recognition. But she was enourmously appealing and turned out to be a very good candidate who was the right person to run in an area of exponential growth for the NDP over the previous few years. She finished a strong second in '03 and built on that. She wasn't a "star" candidate, she was a good candidate who was abke to take advantage of the NDP base in the riding. Lousie can be the same thing.)

[ 19 April 2007: Message edited by: Charles ]

quote:

---

The NDP is supposedly for the goals of Proportional Representation, yet they won't consider working with other parties to achieve it.

---

quote:

---

To your point 1., people from different parties can end up with similar goals in certain areas of policy. It's pig-headedness to put your party's name above what is good for the country by refusing to elect quality MPs who would improve the direction of the country. It's not always possible to get your desired party's MP elected in any given riding in Canada due to our electoral system, so May is at least trying to work out a way of correcting that.

---

Bull. The NDP was a strong second in Central Nova. If Miss May really cared about forcing quality MPs through our broken system then SHE would have WITHDRAWN in favour of the NDP candidate. Not made deals with the party that was a weak third to withdraw in favour of the party that was fourth in an attempt to unseat a SITTING DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saskboy:
The NDP is supposedly for the goals of Proportional Representation, yet they won't consider working with other parties to achieve it.

---

But then Paul Martin vetoed the process and dragged his feet on a poor substitute, which was one reason the NDP decided not to let Paul Martin keep stalling until his choice of election date.

Hopefully Dion will take a more liberal approach to electoral reform. He now has Quebec provincial Liberals, Ontario provincial Liberals and BC provincial Liberals all saying "here's how to do it, Stephane." Plus his new Green friend. So it won't be long now, I hope.

[ 19 April 2007: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

And then the house can help put together a proper environmental platform.

What do you say Stephane?

[ 19 April 2007: Message edited by: quelar ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saskboy:
Lou, you're mischaracterizing May as a parachute candidate, despite her being from Nova Scotia.

---

Look, I'm 'from' Nova Scotia in that I was born in Halifax and lived there until I was 21 (fifteen years ago).

But if I were to fly back there and announce I was running for office (correction, if I were to announce I was running for office THEN fly back) I would be a parachute. I would be a parachute if I flew back to run in Halifax for god's sake! Let alone Central Nova.

May lived for awhile in Sydney - 2.5 hours from the Pictou area. She has no connection there. Furthermore, she hasn't lived in Nova Scotia for over a decade.

Greens would be better off admitting this and moving on then trying to claim some ownership to the riding based on the weakest of connections. Voters will see through that a mile away.

By contrast Louise Lorifice lives in the riding, taught in the riding, and raised eight children in the riding. That's roots my friend. Not the fact she occasionally stopped in Antigonish for lunch while driving to Halifax from Sydney 20 years ago.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saskboy:
[QB...The NDP aren't looking at the big picture of what's best for the country...[/QB]

---

there are a great deal of us, NDPers and apparently the leader of the Nova Scotia Greens, who are looking at what is best for the country and we don't think it is the unprogressive Elizabeth May or her orphaned Tory party. We also clearly don't think it is the Conservatives, nor do we think it is the Liberals who have a terrible environmental record of the past 13 years and who's new leader May has endorsed was Environment Minister for part of that.

So that leaves us looking at the NDP as what is best for the country.

What i don't understand is why all the Green rhetoric keeps pushing this "what's best for the country" garbage. If you really want to defeat McKay, it would be common sense to rally efforts behind the party that came second in the riding, who would have beat McKay with that support. How on earth is rallying behind a 4 place party with an opportunistic leader with a revenge agenda that has nothing to do with the Greens "good for the country"?

quote:

---

The NDP aren't looking at the big picture of what's best for the country

---

This is a move towards a 2 party state to make up for the problems of FPTP. If deals like this become the norm then what's the point of PR? Is working against PR best for the country?

How come the Greens and the Libs aren't looking at the big picture for what is best for the country by supporting the party that has the best shot of unseating McKay?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lou Arab:
Furthermore, she hasn't lived in Nova Scotia for over a decade.

---

quote:

---

The NDP is supposedly for the goals of Proportional Representation, yet they won't consider working with other parties to achieve it.

---

The Taliban reference is shameful and May should apologize on a personal level to Layton.

[ 19 April 2007: Message edited by: Marc ]

NDP - 17.5% and 29 seats
so-called Greens - 4.3% and zero seats (not even close)

I live fairly close, and in an area with a lot of cultural and demograhic similarities. And I know the on the ground situation in the riding well.

I don't think May will be seen as a parachute. On the other hand, she's not even 'sort of local'. She would be that if in the most general way, she was seen as Nova Scotian. But she is not.

The other thing is that her greatest chance to make inroads was in Antigonish town and county- away from MacKay's prime turf and around the university.

But that is also Louise's home turf.

Long time teachers do VERY well in small town Nova Scotia as candidates. A lot of your students are around, they cover a number of age brackets, they have a lot of place identification that they share with the candidate, and a lot of shared and known social networking.

It is a qualitatively and categorically different phenomena than what it means to have been a teacher in Metro [which still helps], let alone in the GTA or Greater Vancouver.... or small town Ontario [where I have also lived] for that matter.

Louise also has Alexis MacDonald's personal network to draw on [Antigonish as well], and extensive NDP organization and networks in Pictou County where 2 of 3 MLAs are NDP and get elected / re-elected only by having very strong organizations.

Then there are the Conservative organizations and personal networking. The last election was already a wake up call to MacKay that he had to pay more attention. I'm sure they took note loud and clear.

Something very similar happened to Alexa McDonough. After years of coasting she only won by under 2,000 votes in 2004. Not close, but sobering. The 2006 campaign was different- blew the competition out of the water and had resources to contribute to other ridings.

MacKay isn't going to be able to blow May away in the same fashion- but the point about 'mindfulness' of organization is apropos.

Against this you have the Green forces.

The media circus around May will count for something. I don't think it will be resented. And when people meet her or hear of someone who has [which they will], I think they will be inclined to be charitable and generally warm to her. But liking or being generally favourably disposed to candidates doesn't tip the balance for too many voters.

And what Green forces can there possibly be? Halifazxis 2 to 3 hours drive away and home to no more than a few dozen Green activists- most of whom have little or no campaign experience, and I doubt more than a handful will even come. There won't be more than a dozen POTENTIAL in the riding or within an hour.

Not that a fair number of inspired folks won't walk in the door of the HQ.

If people fly in for volunteer stints in the riding, I don't think they will be looked at askance. But they are going to stick out and be looked at with some amusement more than the Deaniacs in Iowa... whose impressive numbers made almost no impact.

.....

... a lot of outside [NDP] resources for Central Nova in unlikely.

BUT, level of resources put in are to a large degree a reflection of what is developed in money and volunteers locally. IE, if you show strong local campaign development you'll move up the ranking of resource allocation even if your 'objective' potential is less.

AND, the NDP is pretty good at mid-campaign shifting of resources into a riding that is showing surprising potential. And there is a deep pool of experienced campaigners in Nova Scotia.

So if there are lots of volunteers avaliable, extra experienced organizing help can be tapped- a fair bit of which is already in that riding.

In other words, build it and they will come.

Who knows what will develop in the run up to a campaign. It is even possible that May's participation and the attention that goes with her will give Louise a better crack at MacKay.

Its a very unusual trype of 3 way split. But 3 way splits produce surprising outcomes.

It's also worth noting that Louise Lorefice is not just keeping the seat warm for alexis MacDonald to come back to.

I don't know this, but I'll bet Louise does not see this as a one time deal. May will not be around next time, and Louise will have another crack at MacKay.

The NDP is good at both sudden and creeping victories in Nova Scotia. And if MacKay is still standing the following election, he and his government will be getting ragged.

======================

To donate to Louise Lorefice's NDP campaign in Central Nova:
Make the cheque out to "Central Nova NDP"

Mail to:

Wayne Pierce
RR#2
Scotsburn, NS B0K 1R0

For those who don't know how tax credits work:

- donation up to $400 you get a 75% tax credit.

That is total of ALL donations to any federal political entity, party or riding association.

- anything over $400 your tax credit declines to 50% and declines again before you hit the maximum donation level.

............

As to the local Liberals, at best, they don't amount to much in the riding... let alone that most of them will stay home rather than help May.

My account of what the Gliberal / May campaign is up against is not to say they won't be able to achieve a lot. Just that the chances of them overcoming everything and winning are remote.

[I made the point elsewhere that even if they run a bang up high energy campaign with momentum, the chances of the Greens going good local voter identification and pulling the vote on election day are remote. They don't have and won't have the infrastructure for it. And IF they do get with in striking distance of winning, they will need that to put them over the top.]