As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Canada about to go Green?
Richy
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Toronto Star article
In a nutshell: Stephen Harper may have done his biggests political mistake yet, and caused the biggest shift in Canadian politics since the 1993 election. He chased one of his MPs away... and maybe right into the arms of the Green Party of Canada.
The MP is Garth Turner, a back-bencher from Ontario and long-time Conservative. Harper recently expulsed him from the Conservative Party. For our international readers, this means that Turner is now an independant, and can join any party he wants (provided of course they want him).
But what party will that be? Given that not a single Conservative stood up for Turner when he was expulsed, it seems unlikely at best that he'll go back to the Conservative Party. The Liberal Party could be an option, but they haven't made a move yet - they are no doubt too busy with their own leadership race to bother seducing a low-importance back-bencher. The NDP is officially against floor-crossing MPs unless they run in a by-election, so they won't take him. This leaves only the Green Party of Canada. Now normally this would look like a long-shot at best. But in his blog, Turner openly supports the Green Party's cause. And the Green Party leader is already on record saying they would welcome Turner with open arms. Suddenly, a Green MP sounds like a likely possibility...
For our international readers: what you must understand is that the Green Party of Canada has very little of
and a lot of 
. It is far from being a group of eco-hippie compost-making vegetarians, and is in fact more accurately described as "eco-capitalists", looking for sustainable eco-friendly solutions instead of nature-first business-screwing ideas. Some people even go so far as calling it a right-wing party... and perhaps not wrongly so. Over onne third of Conservative voters consider the Green Party as their best second-choice option, as opposed to just 20% of NDPers (our most left-wing serious party).
Now the big question, what it the importance of this? Should Turner really switch to the Green Party, it will have a major impact. At presend, the Green Party of Canada is what could perhaps be described as a serious third party here. They are at a middle-ground between a small party and a serious national party. Much like a serious national party, they have candidates running in every riding (which is more than we can say about the Democrats in the USA). They also got over 4% of the votes nation-wide in the last election (which is 4% more than other small parties). However, they do not have any elected MPs in parliament, which is the main point against them, and what contributes most to the negative "third party" image. If Turner were to become the first Green MP, this would instantly change the Green party from a larger-than-usual third party to a serious federal party. The Green Party would get to ask questions during Question Period in Parliament. Their leader would be invited at the Leaders' Debates during the elections. And they would be taken seriously by journalists, thus being more able to get their voice heard in traditional media.
Overall, it would be a major boost to the Green Party.
It would also be the most important change in Federal politics in a long time. Not counting the splits and merges of the Conservative party, the last time a new party was added to Parliament was in 1991, when the Bloc Québécois was created.
And since the Green Party is most seriously considered an option for conservatives, it could potentially be a major blow against the Conservative Party.
At any rate, Turner still has not annouced his decision on whether or not he's joining the Greens. So, stay tuned.
In a nutshell: Stephen Harper may have done his biggests political mistake yet, and caused the biggest shift in Canadian politics since the 1993 election. He chased one of his MPs away... and maybe right into the arms of the Green Party of Canada.
The MP is Garth Turner, a back-bencher from Ontario and long-time Conservative. Harper recently expulsed him from the Conservative Party. For our international readers, this means that Turner is now an independant, and can join any party he wants (provided of course they want him).
But what party will that be? Given that not a single Conservative stood up for Turner when he was expulsed, it seems unlikely at best that he'll go back to the Conservative Party. The Liberal Party could be an option, but they haven't made a move yet - they are no doubt too busy with their own leadership race to bother seducing a low-importance back-bencher. The NDP is officially against floor-crossing MPs unless they run in a by-election, so they won't take him. This leaves only the Green Party of Canada. Now normally this would look like a long-shot at best. But in his blog, Turner openly supports the Green Party's cause. And the Green Party leader is already on record saying they would welcome Turner with open arms. Suddenly, a Green MP sounds like a likely possibility...
For our international readers: what you must understand is that the Green Party of Canada has very little of
and a lot of . It is far from being a group of eco-hippie compost-making vegetarians, and is in fact more accurately described as "eco-capitalists", looking for sustainable eco-friendly solutions instead of nature-first business-screwing ideas. Some people even go so far as calling it a right-wing party... and perhaps not wrongly so. Over onne third of Conservative voters consider the Green Party as their best second-choice option, as opposed to just 20% of NDPers (our most left-wing serious party).Now the big question, what it the importance of this? Should Turner really switch to the Green Party, it will have a major impact. At presend, the Green Party of Canada is what could perhaps be described as a serious third party here. They are at a middle-ground between a small party and a serious national party. Much like a serious national party, they have candidates running in every riding (which is more than we can say about the Democrats in the USA). They also got over 4% of the votes nation-wide in the last election (which is 4% more than other small parties). However, they do not have any elected MPs in parliament, which is the main point against them, and what contributes most to the negative "third party" image. If Turner were to become the first Green MP, this would instantly change the Green party from a larger-than-usual third party to a serious federal party. The Green Party would get to ask questions during Question Period in Parliament. Their leader would be invited at the Leaders' Debates during the elections. And they would be taken seriously by journalists, thus being more able to get their voice heard in traditional media.
Overall, it would be a major boost to the Green Party.
It would also be the most important change in Federal politics in a long time. Not counting the splits and merges of the Conservative party, the last time a new party was added to Parliament was in 1991, when the Bloc Québécois was created.
And since the Green Party is most seriously considered an option for conservatives, it could potentially be a major blow against the Conservative Party.
At any rate, Turner still has not annouced his decision on whether or not he's joining the Greens. So, stay tuned.
Richy on
0
Posts
I am very hopeful that this turns out to be a boon to the Green party. Jim Harris as leader was actually a plus as well, as he has built their platform into what it is today. It's really important for the Green party to distinguish itself from the other "green" party - the NDP - as not a high-tax high-service party. That's not at all what they are about, and now they can switch to more Green-oriented leaders (as they have with the new leader, current name escapes me) without scaring away those key FISCAL conservatives.
I actually remember reading a Globe and Mail Op-Ed piece by Preston Manning about a year ago. He wasn't on his usual west wants in kind soapbox, but he was writing about the future leader of Alberta and the chance they'd have to create a new movement. He predicted a fusion of fiscal conservatism and Green social and environmental issues to create the "new" post-Ralph PC Alberta party.
Preston Manning - Prophet?
I'm with Jeff.
At Wikipedia, too:
The Green Party of Canada and its current leader Elizabeth May.
Yes, it was a ridiculous margin. But the riding includes Banff, Canmore and Jasper, and two national parks. As Canmore grows (quicker than Calgary, IIRC), so too will the Green Party presence in the riding.
And in just five years, with our current political landscape of yearly elections, the scene could change dramatically and quickly at that. I hope this is the trickle that becomes something great. I am an optimist.
(I live in Banff for 6-7 months a year, and will move to Canmore/Jasper permanently when I can afford it)
They arent so different in ethos, if you swaped it wouldnt do shit because of the media portrayal.
I would really like to see the green party get a bit more influence. I support he NDP usually, but it doesn't seem like they will pull off a federal victory any time soon. The Liberals are in shambles until they get a new leader, and the Conservatives are not in power because people liked Harper, but because they wanted to punish the corrupt Liberals.
Getting that one Green MP would be a very major change, and a good one I think. As has been mentined they are right on the cusp of becoming a major party, they just need some little push to get them over that edge. Unlike the NDP, they have much wider demographic who is potentially interested; from the predominantly young urbanites who support left wing causes to older folks who like fiscal conservatism. I voted for them in the last provincial election, and my 76 year old grandmother did to.
And yeah, now the Greens seem to have a decent leader, one who is definately "green" in the environmental sense, and not an idiot like the last guy. Could be good. I just wish the green fielded stronger candidates.
My thoughts exactly.
Edited:
I've always been meaning to catch up on international politics. For me, at least, It's very fascinating. (As an American citizen who finds american politics to be boring.)
Sorry for the derail.
In the US, someone once told me, a left-wing Dem in a red state will be further right than a right-wing Pub in a blue state. Each representative then goes to Washington and votes any way he wants, regardless of his party's official stance on issues. That's not the way it works in Canada. The party you vote for in your riding is the same everywhere else in Canada, and has the same official stance on issues throughout the nation. Once your representative goes to Ottawa he will vote following the party line, not any which way he wants. But for this to remain true, party discipline has to be enforced, and to do that party leaders have to be able to kick out rebellious MPs.
And that's leaving aside him trying to unilaterally hijack the party power structure, being investigated for embezzling party funds, and being described by those who had to work with him as "a sociopath".
His leader-ship was a gong-show from beginning to end.
Edit: Incidentally, the new leader (Elizabeth May) was on the Mercer Report a couple of days ago. She came off ok.
Jim Harris was indeed a douche. I hated the bastard.
I really, really like Elizabeth May. I've been seriously considering joining the Green party since her leadership win, and this business about getting their first sitting MP may be the thing that puts me over the top.
I never understood how US political parties worked. The lack of party discipline in the States just baffles me completely. Everything a free vote? How does anything get done? Doesn't make any sense.
Didn't the liberal party just implode over a corruption scandal?
More or less, yeah.
A "ministers in charge of a running and oversight for a particular government program caught funneling money to a company they had close ties with" kind of corruption scandal. The utility of having held the whole party accountable for it, along with a prime Minister who was officially cleared of any wrong-doing in the case, is questionable.
It wasn't unlike the relationship between a certain Dick and a company that rhymes with shmalaburton.
Basicly politcal parties in the U.S are the loosest definiton of the term possible.
Essentally things get done because the people elected want to get relelected, so they do what the people who voted them in want.
If you managed to piss off your voters, you're screwed.
So it's actually a better system for the reason in the first place.
I'm not trying to start a pissing contest.
It's hard though, because I'm an arrogant American and your entire country has an inferiority complex.
Also, this political system of yours sounds a lot like professional sports in that Turner's now a free agent looking for the right team to bring themselves to the championship.
But no more than a few seats. If they became really competitive, they probably wouldn't know what to do with the power. The closest thing we have to a viable left(er) leadership or opposition party is the NDP, but that isn't saying a lot.
...
(So, who else thought this thread title meant legalization was back on the table? Who else hoped?)
As if the parties in power ever do. Most of them have no idea what they are doing. They all seem so unqualified to lead a country.
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
What do you mean by unqualified though? Just going by my own feelings (and yes, I know that's vague), I'd say the last truly qualified PM we've had was Mulroney.
You're joking, right? Brian fucking Mulroney? He wasn't even involved in politics or public policy until he won the leadership of the PCs. The guy was a lawyer with no experience in any kind of government. Chretien, on the otherhand, was a seasoned cabinet minister that led constitutional negotiations for Trudeau. Even if he was a bit of a douche, Chretien was more qualified than goddamned Mulroney. Martin was also qualified - he was Finance Minister for a decade, remember. He was just a lameduck.
Harper is also qualified to be a Prime Minister. Even if I don't like the majority of his policies, or agree with the way he runs his cabinet or caucus, the guy is qualified. Mulroney's two governments were unmitigated disasters, and the guy was an asshole to boot. Blah.
I just don't understand how a political party can function without some semblance of central leadership, either for MPs (the Whip/Party Leader) or within the party itself (the Party Executive). Even the UK, where backbenchers and cabinet ministers have more power relative to the PMO, there is party discipline, both in the house and in the party itself.
You see, in countries with a parliamentary system, nearly all votes are done along party lines. Only very rarely are free votes called, and those are usually on moral issues, or issues that divide the ruling party. It seems to me to have a free vote on an issue of confidence (such as a budget) is incredibly counterintuitive. There would be no guarantee that the House wouldn't lose confidence in the Government, and force an election.
Well, I suppose that is sort of an non-issue in your system (given the fact that your Congress can never seem to lose confidence in the Government - someone care to explain that?), but it is a very big one in a parliamentary system.
John Turner? That guy was hilarious.
Let's not open that can of worms. I will say, however, that if your system is based on voting for individual representatives (rather than parties), why not just outlaw parties altogether? Or, at least, abolish them? It seems that they serve no real purpose in the US other than to provide a quick label for reactionaries to use in rants or polemics.
Well, America's founders didn't like political parties, which is why there is nothing in the Constitution regulating them. They are basically private organizations, and outlawing them or abolishing them would likely violate the right of free assembly (among other Constitutional rights).
America's founders didn't like faction - which would be more accurately described in modern times as special interests.
ouch, what a burn.
I sure hope you don't break out the aboot jokes next.
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
I'm not sure where I stand on it - it's a chicken and the egg thing. Canadian political culture has both adapted to and created the current state of affairs - when people vote it is first and foremost for the party, followed by the leader. The local MP themself (i.e. who they are actually voting for) rarely matters much at all. Not many people want an MP that's not going to act in accordance with the party. Just after the election when Emerson crossed the floor nobody was saying "well, at least we still have David Emerson representing us, regardless of what party he's with".