Tag Archives: coalition

Last Election For Green Party, May

Latest polling numbers indicate that the Green Party is a failed experiment in Canadian politics.   Support for the Green Party has been rapidly collapsing in recent months.

A Simon Fraser University sourced five poll average over the last two years showed a steady increase in support for Greens in 2009 and first half of 2010 with a summer peaks above 12% average support across the Country.  (http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/polls.html)

Since then–in just 8 months–the Greens have lost half of their support, down from 12% to 6%, a loss of two years worth of gains according to the SFU data.  Take a look at the graph in the link above, the trends are unmistakable, with August 2010 as the turning point…  What happened in August?…

Nik Nanos of polling firm Nanos Research, a past consultant for the Greens, has support for Greens at just 3.2% and dropping fast.  Now that the Green Party won’t be in the televised debates, it is hard to imagine anything but a crushing final defeat for Elizabeth May and the Greens.  It is doubtful that the Greens could gain back the confidence of voters after another failure.  The Party is over.

What Happened to the Greens in August 2010?

Anyone who knows metrics, looks at this study and wonders: How does a decade long steady upward trend in Green support, with no major corrections, suddenly collapse?  Without warning?… or was there warning?…  Here’s a blog written at the peak of support for the Green Party last year, titled, “The End of the Green Party?

In July 2010, Elizabeth May thought she had everything in her favor, but insiders like myself, who actually understand what it takes to build a political party and win elections, could see that the Green Party was in serious trouble: membership levels were dropping, candidates were quiting, Federal Councilors were resigning, organizers were being laid off, and the Party had a new Executive Director disagreeing with the Leadership every few months.  While the polls showed support increasing, the polls didn’t measure the level of morale of volunteers or the willingness of Greens to give more of their hard earned money for a losing cause.  Elizabeth’s insult to democracy around the 2010 BGM leadership scandal was the last straw for many.

At the peak of the Green Party’s support last year, Elizabeth May sent a personal message to Greens asking them to effectively make Elizabeth May the “Leader for Life” as some called it, instead of renew the party through a leadership race.  Undemocratically, the sponsor of the motion, rival Leadership contender, Sylvie Lemieux was denied a chance to address the membership with her own message or response–E May shut Sylvie out of the debate.  In fact May has a history of silencing those that disagree with her.

Elizabeth’s message contained several self serving lies. After the first round of voting failed to settle the leadership contest issue, May told Greens, and the media, that the issue was decided, to trick rival supporters into not showing up to vote Elizabeth May out.  Members were so disgusted, only 12% of the Party voted in favor of Elizabeth May’s Leadership, even though she implied 85% of the entire Party supported her in her press release.  Many members had silently–and not so silently–quit over the issue.

The number of environmentalist that see the Green Party as doing more good than harm, is a limited number to begin with–just ask David Suzuki.  Most of the Greens new supporters were people looking for a different style of politics.  What they got was a different type of rhetoric that quickly sounded just like the old parties, with back-room dealings, power-plays, crushing of dissent, out of control egos, nepotism, incompetence, and lies to the public.

Greens are known for voting for their choice even when the outcome is negative–helping to elect Conservatives in many ridings–because, as Greens say, “Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.”  Now many see Elizabeth May and the Green Party as just another evil. In light of E May’s conduct, greens find it harder to justify supporting the Green Party.

Now, even those that remained Green supporters have lost much of their enthusiasm.  In BC, where Green support is highest, only two dozen members showed up to the recent 2010 AGM of the Green Party of BC.  The writing was on the wall.

After all the blood, sweat and tears I shed for the Greens, I am sad to see the end to what looked like such a promising opportunity for us all.   So many of us put so much into this cause, only to see it stolen by the very conduct we joined the party to oppose.

I am also bitter, because the failure of the Greens was not inevitable.  The success of the party was virtually certain until Elizabeth May came to power.

Advertisements

CTV Attacks Governor General Before Decision, But Not After…

Check out this story, that attacks GG Michaelle Jean prior to her dcision on whether to allow Stephen Harper to “cut and run” from a confidence vote: “Does inexperienced Jean have right stuff to make right choice?” http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081203/jean_gg_081203?s_name=&no_ads=

This is a “proroganda” story that prepares people’s opinions to be negative of her if she makes the “wrong” decision, and by wrong I mean wrong for the Conservatives and oil companies. If she had forced a confidence motion, this would be front page on their website and they would then start with “Some are saying…” and attack her even more virulently.

Of course she allowed the government to sit out two months of crisis, so the story is now buried…

Hypocrisy and Blame: The End of the United Right?

Western Separatists’ Anti-Quebec Stance Threatens to Split the Conservative Party

The Conservative Party is attempting to retain power by claiming the progressive coalition has no mandate. Forcing an election costing 300 million dollars, after trying to cancel $30 million in public financing for political parties, under the guise of saving money, shows that it is Stephen Harper that is engaged in a power grab that looks more like a power gasp.

Harper’s hubris, and his US strategists, who do not understand Canada’s parliamentary system, led to the strategy of bullying that has brought Harper from talk of a majority government in September, to the isolated Official Opposition in December.

The Conservative strategy is now to frame the debate as a “coup d’etat” by a Quebec conspiracy, instead of the will of the majority of Canadian voters. The separatist stance of the Bloc, does not give the minority government of Stephen Harper a mandate to govern. Stephen Harper’s failure to gain the confidence of the majority in Parliament does not bode well for his reign.

Alberta Reform Party bloggers are calling for “the west”–meaning Alberta–to separate. How does Harper claim that the progressive coalition is un-Canadian because it needs the votes of “separatists”, when his own power base is calling for the break-up of the country, because they can not dictate their will on the majority of the Canadian people?

How about this breaking news for hypocrisy? It turns out Canadian Alliance Leader Stockwell Day attempted his own “coup d’etat” with the separatist Bloc in 2000.

Stephen Harper, with his hubris and hypocrisy, has been credited with “uniting the right and the left”. This is ironic given that the attack on Quebec voters will end all hope of a Conservative majority–the purpose for the existence of the united right.

With the hope of a majority gone, what reason will social conservatives, libertarians, and “red tories” have to stick together? (What reason did they ever have?) How will Ontario and Quebec Tories–real Tories–react to the strategy of claiming that the representatives of Quebecers have no right to help govern the country? How will PC’s justify their unity with so many that what to break-up the country? By dumping Stephen Harper, and entering into a divisive leadership contest.

UPDATE: CTV has this piece saying “Harper’s rhetoric on Bloc risks alienating Quebec” but a day later than my post ; )

A Message to Conservatives About the Progressive Coalition

Canadians vote on policies through local representatives–not governments. The 44% of Canadians that voted for the NDP and Liberal policies have more support than the 36% that voted for George Bush’s failed ideas. Period.

This is not a case of 5,205,334 vs. 75 making back-room deals. It is in fact 6,149,000 Canadians vs 5,208,000, or 7,528,000 vs. 5,208,000 if we include voters for the Bloc as well. In total, 8,466,000 Canadians voted against neo-conservative ideology just two months ago. Get the numbers straight.

There is also a tremendous amount of anti-Quebec language coming from Conservatives. First they say that the Bloc (and therefore all its supporters) are un-Canadian, then they say that this deal was put together exclusively by a Quebec conspiracy. And they wonder why some Quebecers want to separate from Canada… Harpercons, if you don’t like the Bloc–why don’t you beat them in the next election, instead of sleeping with biker chicks? = O

And why do you Alberta Reformers and northern Republicans call yourself “Tories” anyways? Tories are supposed to protect our parliamentary democracy, our constitution, and federalism–not destroy them.

Will Prime Minister Dion Back a Carbon Tax?

First, congratulations to Stephan Dion, Jack Layton and all Liberals, New Democrats and Canadians that fought for this coalition. As I have written I am in favor of a progressive coalition.

Now that we will have a government representing the majority Canadians and working for all Canadians, the question is, will Dion keep his promise of a carbon tax?

Jack Layton and the NDP as well as the oil industry Conservatives were against this tax, but for different reasons. Harper was doing the bidding of the oil industry and Albertans, while the NDP had worries about the economic impact on low income Canadians who don’t pay enough tax to see any money back from a reduced income tax.

What many in the NDP do not realize is that the NDP policies regarding improvements to our social safety network and a “living wage” cancel out these concerns. The rationale is that while a tax on carbon emissions increases prices for energy and any transported product, the dramatic savings in income tax, regional adjustments for high energy use areas, and an increase in the minimum wage, as well as all forms of social assistance will counteract the price increases. Then the carbon tax will function as planned, rewarding people in each region of the country with lower than average greenhouse gas emissions with more money, while making people who pollute more than average pay a bit more every year.

UPDATE: I found this piece on a carbon tax that’s short and worth a read.  Turns out, a tax on carbon doesn’t ruin the economy.

Will the NDP continue their assault on a tax on carbon?

The People, Divided, Will Always Be Defeated

All elements within the progressive movement, whether Liberals, New Democrats or Greens, are unified in opposition to the policies of the Conservative Party, yet they spend much of their time attempting to defeat the other two.

It is very common when one speaks of co-operation, coalitions or unification to hear, “But they–” followed by an attack on a policy or past action of that party. As long as the left defines itself by what it stands against, it will continue to divide into smaller and smaller groups, each more bitter and disorganized than the last.

Liberals, New Democrats and Greens are members of these unique parties because we do have differences in policy and leadership, though we nearly all agree that our environment is in trouble and major changes are needed immediately, tax cuts for the rich should be ended, corporations have far too much power, and that the government should act in the interests of all Canadians–not just those that voted for it. We also know that we will never get a fair, honest and accountable government if we continue to fight amongst ourselves.

Competition between three center/left parties is what empowers the Conservative government, when we are the majority. Any agreement to not run candidates in particular ridings creates resentment among voters and party members. No arbitrary system of cooperation seams fair to all.

How can we retain or unique platforms and values, and still cooperate–and compete–in a way that is fair to all Canadians?

The solution is to hold a combined nomination meeting (or virtual meeting) in each riding where the winning candidates from two political parties that receive the most votes stand in the general election, while the party in last place sits out that election. This can be accomplished by EDAs in cooperation, or by the party Leaders agreeing not to sign the nomination papers of any candidate that received the least number of votes at their nomination meeting when compared to the other party or parties in agreement. This would allow the best candidates and organizations to run, and only eliminate candidates that have no chance to win. All parties would be fairly represented with even the Greens winning some of these nominations.

If federal funding is maintained, while there would be less candidates running for each party, each candidate running would get more votes. The reduction of “strategic voting” would encourage more progressive voters to join, donate and volunteer for each party. The result would be even more votes, and therefor funding, for each party.

Liberals, the NDP and The Green Party would be guaranteed more seats, and voters would be guaranteed a better, more representative government.

Consider this and the alternative–a possible majority Conservative government. Those that still disagree with all forms of co-operation, coalition or unification, owe every Canadian, including those yet to be born, an explanation as to why they believe a neo-conservative government is preferable

Copyright 2008 Daniel Mick