The Green Party of Canada has announced that it will hold its national policy convention in Pictou County (read: Central Nova), September 5-7. Yawn.
David Suzuki may or may not address the Green convention slated for Pictou County. Green parties have been riding on Mr. Suzuki’s coattails for close to 25 years, up to and including lobbying him to run on the Green ticket. I should know because, as the Corresponding Secretary for the BC Greens in 1984, I was doing the pitch. He has since appeared as a speaker at Green functions, but it would seem that he will not allow himself to be railroaded into being a Green candidate.
So just what is it that David Suzuki and Al Gore have in common that prevents their names from being affiliated with the Greens? The citizens of Central Nova may wish to ponder that question, or not.
As I stated in a letter to The New Glasgow News when Ms. May announced her non-aggression pact in Central Nova with Stephane Dion, the GPC will likely max out at 10% of voter support (with no seats), which is where the party currently sits, and then start to spin its wheels. If Ms. May has any room left in her mouth for more feet, then public support could easily fall far short of that. The reason for this is that the national hard-core granola demographic likely maxes out at somewhere around 10%. The leap to Mr. and Ms. Main Street is a political span of light years. Ms. May’s leap into the arms of Stephane Dion, however, is a much shorter distance.
Will there be any political payback for the Greens from holding this convention in Pictou County? Not according to The News’ own opinion poll. Had the GPC’s communications director not resigned in protest over the May-Dion pact, they may have figured that one out in advance. The convention is yet another brilliant strategic call by the GPC brain trust. But it sure serves the purposes of Ms. May to keep western delegates at bay while pandering to the neophytes of the Nova Scotia Green Party.
It’s over. It’s time to bite the bullet, become Griberals and work towards the great touchy-feely nanny state wherein individuals will be cuddled and hugged from birth to death.
Showing posts with label Elizabeth May. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Elizabeth May. Show all posts
4/4/07
May oversimplifies some, dodges other issues
(Letter to the Editor, New Glasgow News, April 4, 2007)
Re the interview with Elizabeth May, I would like to raise the following.
To claim that Nova Scotia’s declining tourism industry is directly related to Peter MacKay, as per her comment, “That’s a direct area for which Peter MacKay is responsible in terms of U.S./Canada relations,” is a simplistic response and reveals a serious misunderstanding of the myriad of factors that are contributing to tourism’s decline. Ask any gift shop merchant on Provost Street what is happening with tourism and you will get a more knowledgeable answer.
In responding to the question about bio-regions and decentralization being the two philosophical pillars of Green political conduct, Ms. May performs a neat dodge by not really answering the question, then states, “We need an effective federal government. We're not going to dismantle the federal government in preference to decentralization.” Spoken like a true Liberal! Let’s not forget that if the national Liberals had their way they would be passing legislation, with accompanying monstrous bureaucracies, to accompany Canadians to the bathroom. If you think the rifle registration was a colossal boondoggle, wait until environmental initiatives come along, irrespective of the federal political party sponsoring such initiatives.
Lastly, to cast herself in the tactical light of the late courageous and humble Chuck Cadman is a travesty. To his dying breath, Chuck Cadman represented the wishes of his riding constituency. This is a far cry from treating the Canadian electoral map like a shoe store.
Re the interview with Elizabeth May, I would like to raise the following.
To claim that Nova Scotia’s declining tourism industry is directly related to Peter MacKay, as per her comment, “That’s a direct area for which Peter MacKay is responsible in terms of U.S./Canada relations,” is a simplistic response and reveals a serious misunderstanding of the myriad of factors that are contributing to tourism’s decline. Ask any gift shop merchant on Provost Street what is happening with tourism and you will get a more knowledgeable answer.
In responding to the question about bio-regions and decentralization being the two philosophical pillars of Green political conduct, Ms. May performs a neat dodge by not really answering the question, then states, “We need an effective federal government. We're not going to dismantle the federal government in preference to decentralization.” Spoken like a true Liberal! Let’s not forget that if the national Liberals had their way they would be passing legislation, with accompanying monstrous bureaucracies, to accompany Canadians to the bathroom. If you think the rifle registration was a colossal boondoggle, wait until environmental initiatives come along, irrespective of the federal political party sponsoring such initiatives.
Lastly, to cast herself in the tactical light of the late courageous and humble Chuck Cadman is a travesty. To his dying breath, Chuck Cadman represented the wishes of his riding constituency. This is a far cry from treating the Canadian electoral map like a shoe store.
3/20/07
Interesting to muse what’s behind May’s decision
(Letter to the Editor, New Glasgow News, March 20, 2007)
One has to wonder about Elizabeth May, the Green Party of Canada leader, choosing to run in Central Nova in the pending federal election. Surely the motive is not to win, based on the meagre 1.5 per cent Green vote in Central Nova during the last federal election. So then just what may be going on here?
As reported by the CBC, it has been rumoured that the federal Liberals and Greens have been hunkered down in the back room discussing “ways to unseat the Conservatives in Central Nova.” A look at the Central Nova numbers from the last election offers the following, hypothetical scenario.
Based on the numbers from the last election, should any combination of votes taken from the Conservatives and NDP by the Greens equal 10 per cent, eg. three per cent and seven per cent respectively, while the Liberal vote is “encouraged” to hold pat, then that would put the Liberal candidate and Conservative Peter MacKay neck-and-neck at about 35 per cent. At that point, it becomes anyone’s ball game. So has a deal been struck in the back room allowing the Liberals to be realistic contenders in the riding while savouring the plum of possibly taking out the Minister of Foreign Affairs? And if yes, then what might the payback be for Ms. May for her role?
If I had a political imagination I would venture the guess that the payback is the Ministry of the Environment, should the Liberals come to office, once Ms. May makes the jump, that is. Based on this hypothetical scenario, I give it a year, maybe two.
With all due respect to Ms. May as an astute politician, I would venture the guess that she is wise enough to see that, if anything, the GPC will max out at some future time at a very optimistic 10 per cent and then begin to spin its wheels. Part of this wisdom may include acknowledgement that any hope of a Green political future rests at the decentralized regional level…just as Green philosophy has always meant it to be.
Now only if I had a political imagination would I be putting forward such outlandish thoughts.
One has to wonder about Elizabeth May, the Green Party of Canada leader, choosing to run in Central Nova in the pending federal election. Surely the motive is not to win, based on the meagre 1.5 per cent Green vote in Central Nova during the last federal election. So then just what may be going on here?
As reported by the CBC, it has been rumoured that the federal Liberals and Greens have been hunkered down in the back room discussing “ways to unseat the Conservatives in Central Nova.” A look at the Central Nova numbers from the last election offers the following, hypothetical scenario.
Based on the numbers from the last election, should any combination of votes taken from the Conservatives and NDP by the Greens equal 10 per cent, eg. three per cent and seven per cent respectively, while the Liberal vote is “encouraged” to hold pat, then that would put the Liberal candidate and Conservative Peter MacKay neck-and-neck at about 35 per cent. At that point, it becomes anyone’s ball game. So has a deal been struck in the back room allowing the Liberals to be realistic contenders in the riding while savouring the plum of possibly taking out the Minister of Foreign Affairs? And if yes, then what might the payback be for Ms. May for her role?
If I had a political imagination I would venture the guess that the payback is the Ministry of the Environment, should the Liberals come to office, once Ms. May makes the jump, that is. Based on this hypothetical scenario, I give it a year, maybe two.
With all due respect to Ms. May as an astute politician, I would venture the guess that she is wise enough to see that, if anything, the GPC will max out at some future time at a very optimistic 10 per cent and then begin to spin its wheels. Part of this wisdom may include acknowledgement that any hope of a Green political future rests at the decentralized regional level…just as Green philosophy has always meant it to be.
Now only if I had a political imagination would I be putting forward such outlandish thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
+cropped.jpg)