Green priority: register in New Brunswick and Territories

With the Green movement beginning to take shape here in Canada, it's crucial we have branches in every corner of this country.

If the Green Party can garner 4.5% support federally, then surely there's enough support in every province and territory to sustain a local Green Party.

Unfortunately there still isn't a registered Green Party in New Brunswick or any of the three territories.

Instead, you have PEI Green Party leader Sharon Labchuk (and others as well) having to help organize in New Brunswick, and one of the federal riding associations in the North West Territories covering for the lack of a local party in any of the three territories.

In terms of promoting the Green movement across Canada, surely the Green Party of Canada should consider helping establish local parties in New Brunswick and the territories as a priority.

Running candidates in every riding during a federal election illustrates that we are a national party, with support across the country. But when four of our federation's 13 bodies don't have a local party, just how truly national is the Green movement?

BC Greens quickly fading behind NDP resurgency

A new poll conducted by Ipsos-Reid, surveyed 7-14 March 2006, found a slight drop in support for the BC Green Party - a decrease of a single percentage point, from 13% down to 12%.

The differences are as such:

December 2005
BC Liberal - 35%
BC NDP - 41%
BC Greens - 13%
Other - 3%

March 2006
BC Liberal - 35%
BC NDP - 40%
BC Greens - 12%
Other - 5%

Interesting how the NDP and Greens both lose one percentage point to "Other", while the leading Liberals remained the same.

Obviously not an earth-shattering result, but perhaps more evidence that the BC Greens are shrinking in popularity (albeit very slowly) since the 2001 election, which saw a sudden boom in interest in the Green Party.

The difficultly now for the BC Greens is converting the popularity they temporarily gained from non-committed voters in 2001 into more lasting support. Realistically, the "blip" of support for the Greens in 2001 came more the collapse of the NDP than anything else, and the fact that the main alternative was a fairly right-wing "Liberal" party.

As support for the Liberals has dropped considerably from 2001 levels, the Greens have largely failed to take advantage and consolidate their position as a major player in BC politics. Instead, the NDP have successfully rebuilt themselves, taking support from both the Liberals and the Greens.

The Greens will now have an especially difficult time wrestling votes away from non-committed voters currently leaning NDP, since support for the former governing provincial party is now up to 40% - and it's much harder to take "earned" support away from a party, rather than simply catching fall-out support from a collapsing party. Additionally, the BC NDP is proving itself to be likely the most progressive branch of the party across the entire country (including the national party itself), quickly cutting its favouritism for big labour, and instead positioning itself as a fairly moderate and all-encompassing party of the left/centre-left.

If support for the BC Green Party continues to slide, members may begin to whisper about the need for new leadership. This may or may not be necessary, but clearly the BC Green Party must change their strategy for attracting and inspiring non-committed voters of the BC electorate, as attempting to milk the 2001 temporary gains seems a futile exercise destined for failure.

The NDP has made considerable gains in recent years, while the Greens have moved backwards in terms of popularity. Surely a new approach is needed, unless the Greens are to slip back into fringe party status in BC.

Paul Charbonneau: by-election media review

Parties in tough battle for riding
Town Crier Online
23 March 2006

It’s not often that a candidate running for election will tell you they want to come in second. "Let’s be number two before we are number one," said provincial Green Party candidate Paul Charbonneau.

While he may not expect to be the next MPP for the area, he is looking at building support to get elected in the next provincial election in 2007.

"We are realistic. Within two years by the next (provincial) election, I’ll get in or a green candidate will get in, in 2007."

Why vote Green in this byelection? He’s the only candidate against a new power plant of any size in the Port Lands, so if this is your position "vote for me," he said.

-------

Port Lands:

Green Party candidate Paul Charbonneau said he’s the only candidate that doesn’t support a new power plant of any kind in the Port Lands. His solution is, "We do need energy in the Port Lands, but it must come from natural sources - wind, solar and biomass. The possibilities from natural sources are endless."

The Environment:

Green Party candidate Charbonneau said, "There are programs active in the riding right now to help people disconnect their downspouts from the sewers and redirect them to their lawns and gardens. I would work to get more and better funding for these important initiatives."

Bridgepoint:

Green Party candidate, Paul Charbonneau said he would introduce a private member’s bill to recognize the half-round and work with Bridgepoint to help them adopt "more environmentally friendly" standards in their plan.

Crime in East York:

Charbonneau would like to expand the voluntary police corps in Toronto to ease the burden on the regular force.

"Members of the voluntary police corps, who don’t carry weapons, are a visible presence in the community in radio contact with dispatch. These extra officers could also speak with people who are idling (their cars) on hot days and help identify polluters," he said.

East York’s identity:

Charbonneau said the Village of Old East York is a diamond in the rough and if elected, he would work with local business groups to expand the organic market system in East York and make it a place where others come to buy healthy local food.

Ontario Liberals steal more Green Party ideas

And nothing could make us happier.

The Green Party isn't out for power. We're out to make the world a better place - as cheesy as that may sound.

We may not be in the position to garner 30% of the vote in Canada, but when the parties in government adopt our policies and principles, who cares? There's no bigger compliment than when the opposition ravenously plunder our platform. It's a clear indication that we're reflecting the desires and ambitions of Canadians - and in many cases, we're doing a better job of it than the large parties.

So when Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty announced that Ontario would be subsidizing "green" energy, especially solar energy, we were ecstatic. Because, quite simply, this is our policy being enacted. And if the Green Party didn't exist, you can almost guarantee we wouldn't have heard this announcement today.

Blogger Hotstove proves Torontonians still aren't bothered about western Canada

The most recent instalment of Political Staples' panel podcast - Bloggers Hotstove - was a chat between two Tories (Political Staples and Stephen Taylor), one Grit (Jason Cherniak) and one Dipper (Sinister Thoughts).

While talking about contenders for Liberal leadership probably isn't the best topic when people of contending parties get together, the idea of bloggers from differing political stripes having a live debate deserves credit. Far too many bloggers only bother to read sites of their fellow partisan kin, which is about as intellectually productive and stimulating as a parliamentary session in a dictatorship.

However, I wasn't too impressed by some of the statements made by the panellists. For example, comments were made that the Liberals had "lost" Québec, and that their next leader should be francophone in order to win back La Belle Province. It also seemed universally accepted that the next Liberal leader must be bilingual.

Strategically, I can understand the desire to win over Québec. It was mentioned that the Liberals had lost considerable ground in both western Canada and Québec, but that it would be much easier for the Liberals to get back in the sack with the Frenchies than those from west of Ontario. Fair enough.

But to go from that argument to one of "the next Liberal leader must be francophone Québecois" is a massive leap in logic. And it shows a complete ignorance as to the needs of western Canada - and the very root causes of "western alienation".

I'm certainly no Tory, but one of the few benefits I see about having Harper as PM is that he's from a province other than Québec. It's not that I dislike Québec, but does every single prime minister really need to be from Québec? Prior to Harper, the last non-Québecois PM to win a general election was Joe Clark in 1979. That's 27 years between the Clark and Harper victories. More than a quarter of a century of electing Québecois PMs.

I don't care which part of Canada our leader comes from. I'm British Columbian, but I'd be tickled pink by a Newfoundlander PM. In principle, I'm quite happy having a Québecois PM. But when our leaders are from the same, single province, time after time after time, it gets stale. What's wrong with a little variety?

And this is precisely one of the reasons why western Canadians get pissed off with Canadian federalism, or at least the way our big political parties operate within it. They (and especially the Liberals) seem to think that it is a virtual necessity to have leaders from Québec, in order to appease the irritable constitution-snubbers. Election after election after election.

When the only things that strategically seem to matter to the backroom boys are Toronto and Québec appeasement, western Canadians grow rapidly tired. I would have expected the Maritimes to feel the same way; perhaps the difference lies in the economic divide - wealthy westerns want their voices heard, while the meagre Maritimes (sorry, the alliteration made me write it!) are happy to quietly collect their transfer payments. But, if I was from the Atlantic, I'm sure I would be just as annoyed by the antics of the Ontario-Québec axis.

So, when Torontonians make suggestions that the next leader of a large party, and possibly of our entire country, "must be Québecois", simply for strategic reasons, it makes my skin crawl. There are plenty of talented Canadians across this country - limiting the pool to those from Ontario and Québec shallows the gene selection, and turns this country into a two-province entity.

And they wonder why us westerners moan of "alienation"...

"Green" TV series to air on BBC Two

Over on this side of the pond, television channel BBC Two will be airing a new series called "It's Not Easy Being Green" starting on Tuesday 28 March.

Presenter, inventor and engineer Dick Strawbridge and his family decided that they needed to reduce their 'eco-footprint' - this meant reducing the amount of land, water and other natural resources required to support their lifestyle. The BBC2 TV series chronicles the Strawbridge family's journey from a perfectly normal life and house in the Midlands to a self-sufficient environmentally friendly dream home in the West Country.

Interesting timing by the BBC as to when to air the series... as a municipal election occurring across England and Wales will be announced on March 24. Public organizations generally tend to avoid giving any paritcular party or candidate preference once an election is announced, yet this series begin four days after the announcement.

Lucky the Greens are still small in the UK, or the mainstream parties would be having a fit....

Green candidates for Ontario by-elections

Toronto-Danforth
Paul Charbonneau
phone: 647-438-8557
email: CandidateTorontoDanforth@GPO.ca
website: http://www.torontodanforth.ca/
media liaison: Rob Newman, 416-932-8038 or 647-438-8557, rnewman@sympatico.ca

Whitby-Ajax
Nick Boileau
email: Nick.Boileau@greenparty.on.ca
phone: 905 430-2863
cell: 905 718-0087
contact: Ajay Krishnan, 416 835-3778, akrishnan@greenparty.ca

Nepean-Carleton
Peter V. Tretter
Phone: 613-821-3791
email: ap236@ncf.ca
website: http://www.petertretter.com

An interesting footnote is that Toronto-Danforth candidate Paul Charbonneau will not be distributing lawn signs, as he feels it would simply add to the looming garbage problem in Toronto.

Dear Supporters,

Because of who we are and what we stand for, the Paul Charbonneau Campaign is no longer using plastic lawn signs.

We will not be adding to the garbage problem by utilizing plastic signs that can not be re-cycled nor re-used in a practical fashion.

Directing your neighbours and friends to the Toronto-Danforth riding website, www.TorontoDanforth.ca is a far more effective way of educating and engaging them in our democratic process.

If you would like a sign, please download a 'Soft Sign' from our web site for printing on your own printer. You can then paste it on the door or window of your home or office. In this way we use less but do more.

Above all, talk to your neighbours and let them know you are voting for me on Thursday the 30th of March, 2006.

Sincerely yours,

Paul Charbonneau
Green Party Ontario Candidate
Toronto-Danforth 2006

New Decima poll disappointingly excludes Greens

Today's Decima Research poll surveys Canadians as to which of the federal parties they would vote for if there was an election today.

Disappointingly, the Green Party of Canada was inexplicably excluded.

Angus Reid, who were the first to release the poll online via their website, specifically mentioned that the Green Party was excluded - which is reassuring. Decima Research have yet to post the survey results on their own website, but it will be interesting to see if they too mention the exclusion of the Greens. Such an admission by Decima would be tantamount to a conscious exclusion of the Greens.

So what is the status of the Greens in the eyes of the pollsters? Apparently we're small enough to be excluded from such a survey, and yet large enough to warrant an explanation of exclusion from Angus Reid. Seems like we're in an awkward crossroads at the moment.

Sure, the Greens have never held a seat in the House of Commons. But we're one of the fastest growing political parties in Canada. Include us in debates, include us in polls, give us a chance to spread our message to the electorate - and, given time, we will win seats - even in the first-past-the-post system.

Note: if you would like to express your disappointment to Decima Research about their exclusion of the Green Party of Canada, please send them a message using this online form.

Time to jump off the Tibet bandwagon, Greens

Why is it that Tibet gets so much publicity and support from the bleeding hearts brigade?

Why - time and time and time again - are other areas similarly occupied by a foreign political capital ignored by these same "concerned citizens"? If "freeing Tibet" is such a noble cause, where are the "Turkestan independence" and "save Chechnya" movements?

They don't exist, because those places don't fall under the "cool cause" radar of the beatnicks.

The Green Party isn't any different. First we had the 2006 Green Platform mention Tibet but ignore similarly occupied places. And now we see GPC deputy leader David Chernushenko at a recent Tibet rally.

Where's the consistency?

Chernushenko actually made a good point in a speech at the rally that it's better to give attention to peaceful struggles, rather than armed conflicts, as it sends out a positive message. I fully agree.

But what Chernushenko fails to understand is that he's giving attention to popularised movements made famous by two-bit actors such as Richard Gere, and yet ignoring other places suffering alarmingly similar circumstances. Ultimately, this trivializes legitimately desperate causes into mere popularity contests.

Do we really need to have third-rate celebrities promoting the cause of areas other than Tibet before the Green Party will acknowledge such similar tales of plight? Or are we simply sheep, following whichever cause is "in" at the moment?

As I argued in a past posting - it's time for the Green Party's foreign policy to grow up. Clearly the point is still just as relevant.

Coherency and consistency is the craft of the capable - folksy and festooned is the fancy of the fringe. Which best defines the Green Party of Canada?

New UK Tories "to go green"

Interesting article in today's Sunday Times about new UK Conservative leader David Cameron changing the party into a more "green" entity.

You have to wonder what's behind all this. Is it all just a nice PR exercise to make the Tories a bit more soft and cushy with the non-committed element of the UK electorate?

Or is Cameron truly part of a younger generation that holds green values dearly? And if so, does he feel that "green" and "blue" thinking can seamlessly overlap?

If it's not just an stunt PR campaign, then one could consider this to be a fairly substantial shift in policy for the UK Tories. Under Thatcher, they had been all about "build build build" - the environment be damned.

It will also be interesting to see how the older generation of the UK Tories react to this "green" change, seeing as they still hold substiantial roles and have considerable sway within the party. Do they grudgingly go along with it, or do they start to have quiet chats in office corridors about "this new whipper-snapper Cameron"? There's a fair amount of inevitability about "going green", regardless of one's political leanings, but this is just the latest of Cameron's numerous "modernising" policy shifts.

With the Tories on a slow but gradual increase in popularity, coinciding with New Labour running out of steam, the Tory Old Guard would be foolish to sharpen their knives this early. They would be much better off fully endorsing Cameron in the public eye for now, yet quietly choosing his eventual successor, and waiting for electoral victory before plunging knives into backs.

Welcome to politics, David.

Below are a few highlights from the Times article... or click here for the full article.

Follow me, I'm leader of the green party
John Elliott
The Sunday Times
Sunday 12 March 2006

DAVID CAMERON, the Conservative leader, has told his party to forgo its traditional blue around the home and office and embrace an ethical green lifestyle instead.

He has even arranged for the party to offset its own hot air by planting a forest.

Starting tomorrow only Fairtrade tea, coffee and hot chocolate will be available in Conservative campaign headquarters. They will be served to party workers on breaks from fitting energy-saving lightbulbs that switch themselves off when nobody is around.

The new party mantra is “go green”. Shadow ministers and MPs are to be encouraged to leave their Jaguars in the garage and to emulate Boris Johnson, the MP for Henley, by cycling to the Commons.

Cameron, who regularly cycles to Westminster, has upset his neighbours in west London with plans to attach a wind turbine to his chimney as part of a £10,000 green makeover of the property.

...

Last week the Tories announced that they want every home to have solar cells in the roof, a heat pump in the lawn or a gas-powered generator.

Its a far cry from the traditional image of the Tories paving over swathes of the countryside to build out-of-town shopping malls. Or Ken Clarke, a director of British American Tobacco, puffing on his cigar.

23-year-old student wins leadership of Nova Scotian Greens

The new Nova Scotia Green Party, still not yet officially registered with the province's electoral body, has a new leader: 23-year-old student Nick Wright. Wright ran in the 2006 federal election in the Halifax riding (against Alexa MacDonough, among others), receiving 3.9% of the vote.

Not quite sure of what to make of a Green Party giving its leadership to a student. On one hand, you get passion, a new voice, a proponent of change. Yet you also get (relative) naivety, inexperience, and a lack of finesse.

Most interesting of all, Nick "my eyebrows needs a plucking" Wright beat out an old hand from the Green Party of Canada (GPC) for the position, Sheila Richardson. What to make of this? Wright has also run for the GPC, so I doubt this can be spun as a move away from the federal Greens.

In other maritime news, the PEI Greens won't be running a candidate in the island's upcoming byelection, citing the need to focus their finances and energy on the province's next full election.

While the provincial Greens in both provinces clearly have a long way to go before they become serious political forces, it is good to see both parties progressing with a clear vision, even if their growth is only gradual.

Dissecting the Green platform: Fair Taxes

The second paragraph under the "Fair taxes" section on page 31 of the Green 2006 Platform states:

"...our tax system should... [shift] taxes away from jobs and employment, and onto pollution and non-sustainable products, thereby freeing up funding for social programs while encouraging new infrastructure."

This is a novel idea - rather than directly subsidizing environmentally-friendly companies or products, a Green government would instead tax the polluters, and lessen the taxes of the less-polluting companies. This fits in nicely with Conservative ideologies - that "favoured" companies should not be overly bloated with public funding, as it causes havoc with markets, and ultimately creates companies/products that are not financially self-sustaining. In the Green model, it's the "bad guys" (i.e. the biggest polluters) that should have to subsidize the system, rather than general public funding.

If companies discover that polluting will ultimately result in greater financial costs, such a realization will prove a much more effective incentive for companies to reduce their pollution than any "positive" government efforts. Right - sounds pretty good thus far.

However, while this "green" tax policy sounds attractive in principle, the subtle irony is that it itself is not a self-sustaining policy (in the financial, rather than the environmental sense). If our Green tax policy were to prove successful, and thus foster a massive decrease in pollution, who would the majority of taxes be shifted upon, once all of the targeted polluters have cleaned up their act? Surely the revenue would need to be made up from another sector of society.

This question is not answered in Green policy. Once the polluters disappear (either through technological innovation or due to exinction), who then picks up the greatest chunk of the tax tab? The average joe, as the Tories (and increasingly under Martin, as the Liberals) prefer? Or rich individuals and wealthy corporations, as the NDP would favour?

As Green policy cannot be easy located on the old-fashioned, one-dimensional "left-right" political spectrum, this is an unanswered question that will be asked if Greens achieve "mainstream" status in time for the next election. As such, it's something we really need to sort out long before then, or it could become a fundamental issue that divides the party in the future.

"Because emerging from the birth canal once is never enough!"

That was my entry to the current Globe & Mail photo caption contest.

Yes, I know... Pot, kettle, black.

(Cheers to Mark Ralston/AFP/Getty Images for the photo)

Deficits are to Tories, as Dictators are to Communists

No, this isn't one of those daft "I don't like Political Party X, therefore I will spew all sorts of partisan, dogmatic crap against them!" posts. Give me a chance to explain.

Communism. Sounds great in theory. We're told of an Utopia in which nobody starves, where shelter is provided to all, democratic choices are made by the masses. Blah blah blah.

In practice, it's incredibly different to what's promised by the intellectual theorists. You get gulags. You get nutter leaders who suffer from insecurity, paranoia and personality disorders getting the chance to run riot. You get ruthless dictatorships.

This idea of "looks great on the package, but tastes like sh*t when you actually open it" is one of the primary reasons why I dislike Conservatism - not just in Canada, but across the Western world.

Conservatism. They'll lower your taxes. They'll run a less-interfering government. They'll make cuts where there is bloating and overspending. Sounds great.

What's the reality? They promise to lower taxes - and stick to that promise. But the problem is that when they say "we'll lower your taxes", we naively infer from that statement that they'll also lower spending accordingly. Take less of our money, spend less of our money.

Wrong.

It's simple math. If a government taxes less, but spends more (as is the case in virtually all Conservative governments across the Western world in recent decades), you get deficits. Often quite large deficits. Which creates debt. Which you and I eventually end up paying, compound interest and all. So really, lowering our taxes or not is a moot point. It's the spending that matters.

Taxing less but spending more is like going nuts with a credit card that you know you won't be able to pay off at the end of the month. We scold individuals for doing it, yet consistently elect people to do this on a national scale with our government.

But it's not really the fault of the Tories. They keep their promises to tax less. It's us, the ignorant great unwashed, who optimistically assume that "less tax" means government will spend less of our money. It doesn't. Tories spend heaps of money when in office. Just look at recent history, in any Western country.

The Conservatives aren't direct liars. They're just cunning - if they even realize they will overspend at all. Sure, they tax us less, but it's ultimately irrelevant what the tax levels are. If they go nuts on spending, we as Canadians end up paying for it one way or another in the end.

At least the Liberals were honest enough to tax us according to their spending, rather than sweeping overspending under the national carpet and having us pay for it (with compound interest) in the years and decades to come. We're still paying off Mulroney-era debt, are we not?

Having said all this, I must stress that I'm not a partisan nutcase. Harper and the Tories won the chance to govern - fair and square. I'll give them a crack at it. I don't want the Tory government to fail, if such a failure would mean that Canada ultimately suffers, just because they're not the same political stripe as me. Good luck to the new Tory government - honestly.

The challenge to Stephen Harper is - don't overspend. Sounds simple, but Tories across the globe ultimately all fail at this single and simple task. And in doing so, they invalidate the fiscal prudence of their immediate government predecessors (i.e. the Chretien/Martin Liberals).

If the Conservative movement ever wants to become the norm in Western government, they have to curb their silly spending. Call me cynical, but I doubt it will happen anytime soon here in Canada.

Prove me wrong, Stephen. Prove me wrong.

An amusing satire of the Liberal leadership hubbub

Some cheeky bugger has put together an amusing satirical blog, which pokes fun at the hubbub over who the next Liberal leader (yawn) will be.

The site mockingly promotes Richard Diamond, current president of the Young Liberals of Canada, to be the next leader of the federal Liberal Party.

I've heard rumours that the Rhinoceros Party is on the way back... they should sign up this witty scribe!

There is too much self-indulgent and puerile crap in the blogosphere

Sorry, but it had to be said.

Is it too much to ask for some intelligent comments and debate? Do people honestly think anyone really cares when they post about their pet cat on their "political" blog?

I barely even bother meandering into people's "comments" sections anymore - those who can't critique properly resign themselves to name calling, mud slinging, and swearing. Yay.

Life's too short for this. I started up a blog because, initially, I was impressed with what I saw, and wanted to partake in the debate. I wanted to discuss politics - particularly with those of opposing views, in order to expand my own mind, and perhaps contribute something.

But things seem to be going downhill - and quickly. Perhaps it's just the lull in Canadian politics at the moment, but the amount of crap posts, and puerile comments in particular, are making me wonder if it's worth it anymore.