# CAN Has It's First Green Party MP



## The Bread Guy (31 Aug 2008)

I wonder if a new rule will be used to keep the Green Party off the debate platform?  Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the _Copyright Act._

*May elbows into election picture by poaching first Green MP*
Bruce Cheadle, The Canadian Press, 30 Aug 08
Article link

It was supposed to be Jack Layton's day to act prime ministerial and frame the New Democratic Party's coming election pitch.

But the NDP leader's moment of political theatre was upstaged Saturday by the rival Greens, who elbowed their way into the pre-campaign manoeuvring by naming the first-ever Green party member of Parliament.

Blair Wilson, the Independent Vancouver MP elected as a Liberal in 2006, joined Green Leader Elizabeth May at a morning news conference to announce he will carry the party's standard into the House of Commons - in the unlikely event Parliament resumes as scheduled Sept. 15.

Wilson, who resigned from the Liberal caucus last fall under a cloud of controversy over his 2006 election expenses, was cleared this summer by Elections Canada of wrongdoing.

He approached the Greens just a week ago.

"It felt like coming home," Wilson said Saturday.

May characterized the move as an historic moment for Canada.

"We've established ourselves as a party that cannot be described as fringe."

For Layton's NDP, which has battled the Liberals for centre-left voters for decades, the Green party intrusion is an unwelcome reality.

Layton met Saturday with Prime Minister Stephen Harper at 24 Sussex Drive in a set piece of political gamesmanship that served the purposes of both Tories and New Democrats.

Harper has summoned all three opposition party leaders for one-on-one talks before the resumption of Parliament, ostensibly to see whether there's agreement on the Conservative minority's fall legislative agenda.

Layton called the meeting "a charade" in advance and emerged to say it lived up to advance billing.

"He seems intent on quitting his job," said Layton, who immediately offered up his resume to Canadians on the issues of the economy, health care, the environment, food security and the listeriosis outbreak.

"As prime minister, I told (Harper) I would have been convening the leaders to figure out how we work on these key issues," Layton said.

"I got no sense the prime minister is prepared to do what I would do if I were prime minister."

It's a far cry from Layton's "lend me your vote" pitch in the 2006 campaign, when a progressive counterweight to the surging Harper Conservatives was his best hope.

This time around, May and the Greens hope to steal that role.

The party's 1.5 million votes in the 2006 election, combined with continued strong national polling numbers near 10 per cent and federal byelection results that have placed Green candidates ahead of other mainstream party contenders, all point to a legitimate political entity, says May.

She argued having Wilson on the parliamentary roll call as a Green MP is the final piece in moving her party into the mainstream.

"With a Green MP sitting in the House of Commons, it will now be impossible to exclude the Green party from the televised leaders' debates in the next election," said May.

She cited the precedent of Reform's Preston Manning in 1993, who was one of five party leaders in the televisied election debates that year, despite having only a single MP - Deb Grey - in the Commons.

Not so fast, was the immediate response from the Conservatives.

"Our view is there should only be one Liberal candidate in the leaders' debate," said Kory Teneycke, Harper's communications director, citing the agreement between Dion and May last year not to contest one another's ridings in the next election.

"You can't have two candidates from essentially the same party in the debate."

Another PMO spokesman, Dimitri Soudas, perhaps came closer to the real Tory concern when he said Dion "can't bring in a ringer to boost him during the debate."

May, a lawyer and environmentalist with theological training, displayed formidable rhetorical skill Saturday in attacking Harper's apparent rush to the polls.

She suggested Harper's own fixed election date law could conceivably spur a court challenge to stop him from dissolving Parliament without cause.

"I like to think Canadians notice when someone breaks their word in such spectacular fashion."

She decried Harper's "extraordinarily ruthless and surprising move" of raising a fall general election after calling federal byelections less than a month ago.

"Something spooked him and he changed his mind. It's contemptible," she said.

And if given a spot in the televised election debates, May promised to hold Harper's feet to the fire on climate change policy.

"So far, all he does is throw mud at other parties' ideas while the greenhouse gas levels from the Athabaska tar sands go through the roof."


----------



## ModlrMike (31 Aug 2008)

Several points come to mind:

1. While the Green Party may now have a seat, the member will never actually occupy it during this parliament as the PM will dissolve the house and take us to an election.

2. The Green Party has done exactly the same thing they chastised the other parties for doing... accepting a "floor crosser".

3. Having one seat in the House does not make you an official party, ergo no participation in the leader's debates. Only parties with official status get to debate, unless the PM and others extend an invitation. I don't know that this will happen in this case as it leaves the door open for every party with at least one seat to make the same claim.

4. Opportunism.

5. Until the Green Party rescinds its incestuous agreement with the Liberals, neither party can be seen as champions of democracy.


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 Aug 2008)

All true, ModMike, and I can't say I endorse the party per se, either.  

My only point was that in the last televised debates, the Greens were left out (and I stand to be corrected here) because they didn't have a member sitting when Parliament was dissolved.  Now, even though it'll be a newbie, they will, so it'll be interesting to see if Big Media will come up with another reason to keep the debate to "the usual suspects".

Now, if the Greens make it to the podium, how'll they do?  It'll be up to them, but I think they'll get lost in anything other than environmental issues.  Will they convince people to vote for them?  Who knows?  Should they get a crack on the stage?  I say yes.


----------



## Infanteer (31 Aug 2008)

They took a candidate that even the Liberals regarded as too crooked to remain in their caucus.  Way to go Green Party!   ^-^


----------



## aesop081 (31 Aug 2008)

I'm not a fan of May and her squad but upstaging BinLayton is something i can get behind.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (31 Aug 2008)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> They took a candidate that even the Liberals regarded as too crooked to remain in their caucus.  Way to go Green Party!   ^-^



I wonder how her buddy Stephane sees that, after all he is not running anybody in her riding (well Peter MacKay's riding). Looks like a little bit of backstabbing going on.


----------



## brihard (31 Aug 2008)

Given their performance in the popular vote, I think they ought to be included in the debate... Not because I agree with their positions, necessarily, but apparently enough Canadians back them that I think they've earned the chance to take part. Opening the debate up certainly won't harm the democratic process, and their platform does certainly coincide with matters that are becoming increasingly prominent in the social consciousness...


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 Aug 2008)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I wonder how her buddy Stephane sees that, after all he is not running anybody in her riding (well Peter MacKay's riding). Looks like a little bit of backstabbing going on.



Looks like the plusses of having their first MP on the floor trumped the option of staying buddies with Stephane "He Who Won't Be Penned Into a Decision" Dion.


----------



## RangerRay (31 Aug 2008)

The only reason I would oppose the Greens in the debates is because, IMHO, 4 or 5 people participating turn it into a gong show.

I think this is a very cynical move on the Greens' part.  They accepted a "floor crosser" accused of financial irregularities by his own family (he has been cleared, but Citoyen Dion still won't let him back into caucus), who was probably not going to get re-elected as a Liberal nor as an Independent.

I would think many, if not most, Green supporters supported the party because they thought that the party was above this kind of thing?


----------



## Sheerin (31 Aug 2008)

Personally, I think the Greens deserve to be in the Leaders debate based on the fact that they've run candidates in every riding for the past two elections and have had close to 5% of the popular vote.
The bloc on the other hand is a regional party and should be excluded from the Leaders debate, but of course that will never happen.


----------



## ModlrMike (31 Aug 2008)

I still maintain that the best course is to only allow those leaders who have official party status in the house. If we allow the Greens to attend based on their vote tally, then we open the door to every fringe party out there that gets a similar level of support. On the surface, it may not sound fair, but it is... you earn your way into the debate by electing members to parliament, not by getting "x" number of votes and no seats.

The foregoing notwithstanding, it may be to the Conservative's advantage to have Ms May at the debate.


----------



## George Wallace (31 Aug 2008)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I still maintain that the best course is to only allow those leaders who have official party status in the house. If we allow the Greens to attend based on their vote tally, then we open the door to every fringe party out there that gets a similar level of support. On the surface, it may not sound fair, but it is... you earn your way into the debate by electing members to parliament, not by getting "x" number of votes and no seats.



What do you consider the Bloc?


----------



## aesop081 (1 Sep 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> What do you consider the Bloc?



A party with official party status.


----------



## George Wallace (1 Sep 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> A party with official party status.



A "Regional" party, not a National Party.  

I would say that we can go one of two ways:

a.  Only the "National" Parties debate (Liberals, Conservatives and NDP); or

b.  Every "Registered" Party (Not including Independents).

We have only three Parties debating their platform, or make like the Italian Parliament and have fifteen or twenty and fisticuffs.   >  King of the Hill wins.


----------



## aesop081 (1 Sep 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> A "Regional" party, not a National Party.



No such destinction in the laws is there


----------



## a_majoor (1 Sep 2008)

I suspect "Justice" isn't a principle in deciding who gets to go on the Leader's debates. The Parties will vie for partisan advantage (and it is an open question if Elizabeth May will help or hinder the Liberals; the CPC might want her aboard to split the Left wing vote even further), while the MSM and networks are hoping for a good "fireworks" display for ratings (but not an incomprehensible gabfest with the Communist party leader trying to shout down the leader of the Marxist Leninist party  )

Message and content is secondary (and I know this from personal experience, my friends!), so unless Winston Churchill shows up to the debates as well, the end result will be pretty bland as all the leaders try to avoid mistakes and gaffes on air.


----------



## Infanteer (1 Sep 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> A "Regional" party, not a National Party.
> 
> I would say that we can go one of two ways:
> 
> ...



What do you define as a National Party?  Remember that article that Edward put up about rural/urban divide.  The Conservatives didn't get elected in one riding in Vancouver, Toronto, or Montreal, the three largest cities in Canada and almost half the population.  Now, considering the Bloc has representatives from both urban centers and rural areas, I'd say they're fairly well distributed.

Anyways, the point is moot as Aviator pointed out, legally they're an official party.


----------



## George Wallace (1 Sep 2008)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> What do you define as a National Party?  Remember that article that Edward put up about rural/urban divide.  The Conservatives didn't get elected in one riding in Vancouver, Toronto, or Montreal, the three largest cities in Canada and almost half the population.  Now, considering the Bloc has representatives from both urban centers and rural areas, I'd say they're fairly well distributed.
> 
> Anyways, the point is moot as Aviator pointed out, legally they're an official party.



In that they don't have Party members running in all Provinces.  Any Bloc members in Vancouver?  Halifax?  That is what I call "Regional".  Also, a party that really doesn't have the interests of bettering Canada, only an agenda to destroy it and create their own Sovereign State.  All the other major Parties (Liberals, Conservatives, and NDP) have representatives running in all Provinces and Territories of Canada.  The Bloc, and many of the other Parties, do not.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Sep 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> In that they don't have Party members running in all Provinces.  Any Bloc members in Vancouver?  Halifax?  That is what I call "Regional".  Also, a party that really doesn't have the interests of bettering Canada, only an agenda to destroy it and create their own Sovereign State.  All the other major Parties (Liberals, Conservatives, and NDP) have representatives running in all Provinces and Territories of Canada.  The Bloc, and many of the other Parties, do not.



If that was the only criteria, there is nothing to stop the BQ from establishing riding associations anywhere and running candidates in Calgary, Burnaby, the Annapolis Valley....of course there is nothing to suggest these riding associations and candidates will have more than a shoestring to run on. In one sense, the BQ can be compared to smaller parties which don't have the financial resources to run nationally, they *could* make the argument they don't have the resources to run BQ candidates outside the province.

(note; I *do* know what the BQ stands for, I am suggesting they could escape from the accusation they are a regional party fairly easily with some transparent tricks).


----------



## kratz (8 Sep 2008)

It looks like slim chances that Elizabeth May will be at the televised debates. Personally, I would have preferred the networks to chose not to host the debates if the parties excluded her. 

From CTV.ca



> Networks exclude Elizabeth May from TV debates
> Updated Mon. Sep. 8 2008 4:52 PM ET
> 
> The Canadian Press
> ...


----------



## Snafu-Bar (8 Sep 2008)

Debates are like feather pillows, soft full of nothing and usefull for sleeping. I'd much rather have the candidates strapped to lie detectors while to the general populous grills them over a 48 hour marathon of real questions.

 Cheers.


P.s Hopefully she's asked all the wrong questions and comes up with all the right answers.  ;D


----------



## George Wallace (8 Sep 2008)

kratz said:
			
		

> It looks like slim chances that Elizabeth May will be at the televised debates. Personally, I would have preferred the networks to chose not to host the debates if the parties excluded her.
> 
> From CTV.ca



Having seen and heard her, I think it is in her best interest not to be allowed to partake in the debates.  She'd loose more than she would gain if she were permitted to speak on a nationally broadcast debate.  I do know some village somewhere would be relieved to find out her whereabouts, if she did.


----------



## Snafu-Bar (8 Sep 2008)

Well she still has to come out of her "liberal coma" still so who knows...mebbe she evolves.


----------



## aesop081 (8 Sep 2008)

kratz said:
			
		

> Personally, I would have preferred the networks to chose not to host the debates if the parties excluded her.



Since the Green party has little to nothing policy-wise on subjects other than the environment, May has very little to gain by attending a leader's debate.

What would she answer to questions about economic matters ?

Defense ?

Foreign policy ( other than regurgitating anti-GW stuff ) ?

The Greens may be making headway in terms of support but only because the environment has done the same as an issue. It is not, however, the only issue there is. Unfortunately for May, her party is a single-issue party.


----------



## Snafu-Bar (8 Sep 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Since the Green party has little to nothing policy-wise on subjects other than the environment, May has very little to gain by attending a leader's debate.
> 
> What would she answer to questions about economic matters ?
> 
> ...




 I disagree, The green party is about embedding a better lifestyle in everything we do. Just because they are taking an environmentalist stance as thier backbone, it's till one that spans the Cf, The economy and other nations . 

 As long as they do SOMETHING as apposed to the crowd of duds around her we are no worse off, but atleast it's a change from the ever stale crappy status quo.

Cheers.


----------



## GAP (8 Sep 2008)

May excluded from TV debates
By Sue Baliey, THE CANADIAN PRESS 2008-09-08 
Article Link

OTTAWA - Green party head Elizabeth May has been shut out of the televised leaders' debates after every party but the Liberals shunned her inclusion. 

TV network officials hinted that one or more of the other party leaders would otherwise pull out of the showcase election event, set for Ottawa on Oct. 1 and 2. 

"The (network) consortium approached the parties to explore the possibility of including the Green party in all or part of the leaders' debates," spokesman Jason MacDonald said. 

"However, three parties opposed its inclusion and it became clear that if the Green party were included, there would be no leaders' debates. 

"In the interest of Canadians, the consortium has determined that it is better to broadcast the debates with the four major party leaders, rather than not at all." 

The nationally televised event is run by Canada's private networks as an umbrella group that decides who takes part. The consortium includes CBC, Radio Canada, CTV, Global and TVA.  
  
Liberal Leader Stephane Dion has said he would welcome the chance to debate May on TV. 

But Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Monday that May's inclusion would in essence allow a second Liberal candidate to participate. 

He said May's platform is similar to Dion's and that she will ultimately endorse the Liberals. 

"Elizabeth May is not an opponent of Stephane Dion," Harper said at a campaign event in Richmond, B.C. 
More on link


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Sep 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Since the Green party has little to nothing policy-wise on subjects other than the environment, May has very little to gain by attending a leader's debate.





			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Having seen and heard her, I think it is in her best interest not to be allowed to partake in the debates.  She'd loose more than she would gain if she were permitted to speak on a nationally broadcast debate.



It's not about how well or poorly she would do - after all, nobody else seems to be worried about how poorly _other_ party leaders will do.  To me it's simple:  *transparency and accountability on the part of the media.*

According to the news release from "the consortium"


> ....The Consortium approached the parties to explore the possibility of including the Green Party in all or part of the Leaders' Debates. However, three parties opposed its inclusion and it became clear that if the Green Party were included, there would be no Leaders' Debates. In the interest of Canadians, the Consortium has determined that it is better to broadcast the debates with the four major party leaders, rather than not at all ....



Because the media _*owners*_ made the decision, I doubt we'll see the headline, "Three out of Four Party Leaders Don't Want Greens in Debate" (not on any member networks of the "consortium", anyway).

What rules does the consortium use in making these decisions?  According to a submission by the consortium (which uses a PR firm to speak) to the CBC's Ombudsman in 2006 (.pdf)


> ...The decision about who is invited to participate in the leaders’ debates is made by Consortium members *on editorial grounds*. In this election, the Consortium has only invited the leaders of the four most prominent parties with representation in the House of Commons...


In other words, no written rules to judge the consortium by.

Media don't like it when government and others try to change the rules, or not apply the ones in place, or operate without any apparent ones, but are they any different when doing their own thing?

Then again, should I be surprised at the media?  Not really...


----------



## aesop081 (8 Sep 2008)

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> I disagree,



Then please, by all means, show me one single piece of coherent Green party policy on defense  and foreign affairs.


----------



## Snafu-Bar (8 Sep 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Then please, by all means, show me one single piece of coherent Green party policy on defense  and foreign affairs.



 Just because they don't have that part down yet, there will and has to be both and that doesn't mean because they are "green" they are going to forgoe any of the matters pertaining to national defence or it's FA entanglements. It's just a matter of will they add money and continue to strenghten or be a dimwitted troupe who dismantles even more of it.

 Everything is intertwined, one effects the others so in essence they are equally important to get right. The green party is by association no different than any of the other parties or thier membership. They too will suck ass, lie, cheat and steal if they feel they have just cause to do so, as is tradition in Canada. The only difference is that the greens are NEW, small and deserving of enough votes to send a PERFECTLY CLEAR MESSAGE to the rest of the idiotfest rotting in Ottawa.

 Time for a change.

Cheers.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Sep 2008)

It is a moot point that they have been denied participation in a national debate, especially if the Hosts of the event are more or less entitled to invite whomever they want to their 'private' debate on national TV.  If a Party doesn't cover all the Bases; National Defence, the Economy, Foreign Affairs, etc. then they contribute nothing to any such debate.


----------



## observor 69 (8 Sep 2008)

Kinda all over the map but here it is:

Policy Documents ; http://www.greenparty.ca/en/policy/documents

Didn't help did it?  ;D


----------



## George Wallace (8 Sep 2008)

I don't think they have a map after looking there.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Sep 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Then please, by all means, show me one single piece of *coherent *Green party policy on defense  and foreign affairs.





			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> I don't think they have a map after looking there.



Coherent?  You be the judge - the map is still pretty fuzzy (and needs hunting and tea leaf reading).....

Submission to the Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan

Living Policy: Foreign Policy

The Economy

"We believe that security should not rest mainly on military strength but on cooperation, sound economic and social development, environmental safety, and respect for human rights."

Compare this to the coherence of the Bloc's platform on these issues (.pdf)


> Foreign Policy Based on Cooperation, Diplomacy and Peacekeeping.
> We convey Québec values of solidarity during our relations with the rest of the world. Quebeckers prefer such instruments as cooperation, diplomacy and peace-keeping. Conversely, the Harper government’s aggressive foreign policy, based mainly on force and inspired by Bush Administration policies, is unacceptable. The Bloc Québécois is the only credible advocate of an approach based on Québec values.



Riiiiiiiiiight, Gilles....

The point is the media is unaccountable and non-transparent about leaving the Greens out in a way they would NEVER tolerate from any other institution.


----------



## RangerRay (9 Sep 2008)

The fact that the Greens and Liberals are in bed together should be enough reason to exclude them from the debates.  

Personally, I feel that they should be allowed in when they have actually *elected* a party member to the House.  That way, they can prove that their platform has more popular appeal than, say the Marijuana or Canadian Action Parties.

It's bad enough that their first MP had ethics problems...now it appears that they are attracting their fair share of <a href="http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2008/09/whats-with-these-crackpots-is-anti.html">crackpots</a>.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Sep 2008)

Well, the Greens have succeeded in whining long and loud enough to get into the debate.  I really think that their enthusiasm greatly outweights their logic, and we will see that in the debates.  I am sure that they will not have coherent answers for many of the questions, but filibuster instead, using a myriad of words to say nothing.  They will promote one "Green Agenda" and that will be their answer for every question put to them.


----------



## larry Strong (11 Sep 2008)

Seeing's how the "Have a member in Parliament" rule has gone by the way side, when do the Rhino's, Communist party and all others get to join in? That would be some gong show.


----------



## timma (24 Sep 2008)

I received  a Green party pamphlet  in the mail today. Loaded with BS, it was. The part about Afghanistan pissed me off especially. Here's what it says :

"The war in Afghanistan drags on with no end in sight and no clear or obtainable goals.
100 brave Canadian men and women have lost their lives in this futile conflict and the combat mission is costing Canadian taxpayers billions of dollars. The Harper government has faithfully supported George Bush's war in Afghanistan. Had the Conservatives been in power, they would have also committed troops and money to the illegal and disastrous war in Iraq, a war over access to that country's oil resources.

Why would voting Green make any difference ?
The Green party began as a peace party. Greens have always believed that a fair international economy, tolerance, diplomacy and co-operation have always been preferable to war. War should only be the very last resort. Voting Green sends the message that you don't want the lives of Canadian soldiers and your tax dollars wasted on pointless and un-winnable wars."

They have it all wrong. Afghanistan isn't futile, pointless, or un-winnable. As stated in another thread (http://Forums.Army.ca/forums/threads/79878.0.html) it isn't a cost, it is an investment towards the people of Afghanistan. Next they call it "Bush's war" and then go on to say how Iraq is all about oil. Which, correct me if I'm wrong, it isn't.  Then in the second part, they state that Canadian soldiers lives were wasted. BS.

In the next paragraph, they say "Food security is as least as important as military security and national sovereignty" Isn't the Afghanistan mission helping keep the region militarily secure by eradicating insurgents and not allowing them a base from which to orchestrate terrorist attacks, like 9/11? Kind of hypocritical, don't you think?


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Sep 2008)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> It's bad enough that their first MP had ethics problems...now it appears that they are attracting their fair share of <a href="http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2008/09/whats-with-these-crackpots-is-anti.html">crackpots</a>.



True enough, although they're not the only ones - and it only takes one (OK, maybe two...)



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> They will promote one "Green Agenda" and that will be their answer for every question put to them.



And maybe it'll take that to wake them up and realize they'll have to broaden their platform a bit - although it'll be interesting to see if the NDP'll try to "out green" the Greens.


----------



## aesop081 (25 Sep 2008)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> although it'll be interesting to see if the NDP'll try to "out green" the Greens.



They sure dont have to "out green" the Liberals....after all the green shift is not that important a policy  :


----------



## a_majoor (25 Sep 2008)

The Greens are not really an independent party anymore, their leader is almost openly declaring Green voters should switch their ballots to the Liberals (or NDP) at this stage of the election:

http://stevejanke.com/archives/274215.php



> May urged Canadians to do all they can to throw Prime Minister Stephen Harper out of office,* including strongly suggesting they shouldn't vote Green if another candidate has a better chance at defeating a Conservative.*
> 
> "We are too close to the edge of a global apocalypse," May said in an interview. "We have got to grab the opportunities we have. And, clearly, the contribution Canadians can make to a global solution is to get rid of Stephen Harper."
> 
> ...



I would much prefer Green voters stuck to their guns, splitting the "progressive vote" might help the CPC, but who knows, they might get a legitimate sitting MP if they actually *support their party*. After this election they should also take a careful look at their Leader as well.....


----------



## George Wallace (25 Sep 2008)

> "We are too close to the edge of a global apocalypse," May said in an interview. "We have got to grab the opportunities we have. And, clearly, the contribution Canadians can make to a global solution is to get rid of Stephen Harper."



And the Liberals have had such a great "track record" with the environment, while in power?  She's been sniffing glue again.


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Sep 2008)

I'm sure the NDP would do much better - just ask Bob Rae about his experience in Ontario.... Oh.... wait a sec.....  Uh, never mind...


----------



## RangerRay (5 Oct 2008)

If I were a Green Party member, I would be quite upset at my leader basically telling her party supporters to vote for someone else.

Why are we not hearing from angry Green Party members?


----------



## DocBacon (5 Oct 2008)

Why do I get the feeling that I'm watching the Three Four Stooges debate the Prime Minister?

An early political commentator might have described the process as being "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".  Of course, we can always rely on the CBC to divine Harper's hidden agenda from his simple, clear platform - just as they gush without embarrassment for the progressives' dream sequences.


----------



## Jimmy67 (6 Oct 2008)

Thucydides is bang on ref the Libs, NDP, and Greens all being arms of the same left-wing monster, aided and abetted by the media. The "debate" was little more than the other parties trying to dog-pile Harper, and coming out looking like idiots in the process. No surprise there... 

What I find more disturbing than the inanity of the so-called "debate" is the level of base nastiness that is running behind the scenes in this election campaign, at the grassroots level. The idea of people using the internet to "vote swap", for one example, strikes me as an attempt by the left to do an end run around the will of the majority. Hardly ethical or democratic in my books... There has also been a lot of press in the riding I live in about campaign signs being stolen or vandalized. It goes without saying that it is only the Conservative candidate's signs that this has been happening to :. Seems to be a real "brownshirt" mentality building out there, and it doesn't bode well for the future of this country...

As for the newly-minted Green MP, I wonder how his constituents feel about all of this, since they elected him as a Liberal, and now have a member of a fringe party instead. As far as I am concerned, ANY MP who crosses the floor should have to face an immediate byelection, as his mandate to speak for the members of his riding is no longer legitimate. Let the voters judge his choice directly...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Oct 2008)

He is in the riding next to mine and I had to listen to him talk at an all candidate meeting, he is slick and a bit of a blowhard, he claims that everything he was accused of was false and his launched lawsuits, since much of the stuff has to do with his family, Christmas dinners must be quite interesting. Mind you he is heads and shoulders over my NDP candidate who is flaky as a loon, my riding will be a tough race between Don Bell (Liberal) and Andrew Saxton (CPC) both have strong support, but the NDP and Greens (who's candidate comes across as  fairly normal except for the squeaky voice may cut into the liberal vote.


----------



## old medic (15 Oct 2008)

And so ends Mr. Wilson's 46 days as a green MP:

West Van-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country	 Polls Reporting: 116/249

Conservative      Weston, John            44.8%     11238
Liberal               Sutherland, Ian         28.5%       7338
Green                Wilson, Blair             15.1%       3897
NDP                   Forst, Bill                  12.0%      3094


----------



## Michael OLeary (15 Oct 2008)

So, that makes him about 6 hours short of getting a pension?    ;D


----------



## RangerRay (2 Nov 2008)

Hmmm...appears that the Greens made no significant gains despite the increased awareness and media exposure.

If I were a Green, I'd be might PO'd.


----------



## leroi (2 Nov 2008)

No, they didn't do so well nationally but they did come in third place above the NDP in the Guelph riding.  I'm not a fan of the NDP so I found that amusing.


----------



## Jimmy67 (7 Nov 2008)

Hopefully we can keep the Greens around a bit, they make for good comic relief... Personally I would like to see them at about 10% support.

Anything that splits the left-wing vote is a good thing IMHO ;D

As for the ex-Green MP, I guess his constituents were NOT impressed. Serves him right.


----------



## tynanfromBC (21 Nov 2008)

I am late on this as always

Colin P.: I am in the same riding, i had my money on Don Bell. He woulda had another good chance of taking that seat if not for stephane dion. I like Don Bell's style however, he was very active in obtaining donations for the n.van school board while he was the mayor. 

The greens are good for a laugh and thats it. I do agree with their idea of taxation on junk food items and tobacco; however, elizabeth may has zero credibility when you look at her portfolio. One of my International Relations Profs worked with her while they were environmental legal council to Brian Mulroney in the late 80's, early 90's, and even he was saying her credibility is lacking: then again, so would his if he was running on an environmental platform.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (22 Nov 2008)

I don't have anything bad to say about Don Bell other than his choice of party, I had many good talks with him and have seen his work while chairing the Transportation committee. He told me that he was asked by the CPC to run for them, but choose the Liberals. I suspected he wanted to be on the winning side, but he gambled poorly. To his credit he didn't walk across the floor because of it. He also did a lot of hard work keeping in touch with people in thearea, showing up for all of the events, always taking notes. I think this is the best for him as he was looking worn out. I am sure he will still be serving the area in some fashion or other.


----------

