Goodbye Blogger, Hello WordPress

After 11 enjoyable months hosted by Blogger, I'm moving to WordPress. Blogger's great, but the rollout of Beta has been a fiasco. Making new layout templates that people can't use from their own domain is utter silliness.

Please update your links/bookmarks to:

http://www.devonrowcliffe.ca/blog/

The migration hasn't been ideal - WordPress doesn't yet have an import feature that works for Blogger Beta. I used some dodgy hack instead, so my posts prior to late May aren't on WordPress, and only a handful of pictures transferred.

No worries.

Liberals now only party not to propose proportional representation

Barely mentioned by the mainstream media is that Stephen Harper's Senate "consultation" bill would "nominate" Senators via a single transferable vote (STV) electoral system, rather than by a first-past-the-post (or "plurality") system.

What does this mean? That the Liberal Party of Canada is the only federal party (excluding the Bloc) not to be promoting at least some form of proportional representation - arguably the most important aspect of democratic reform. Even Stephen Harper's neo-conservative ideologues have awoken to the benefits of PR.

I won't give Harper too much credit, mind you - for he is not promoting STV for the House of Commons elections, but merely for the Senate "consultations" that he is proposing. Additionally, seeing as there will be relatively few seats up for grabs in a Senate "consultation", it is likely that each vacant Senate seat's "consultation" will be fully independent from other vacant seats - so, in practice, the proposed system may be more like plurality via preferential ballot, rather than true PR.

However, this last point doesn't take away from the fact that even the Tories are proposing to use a new and more democratic voting system. Whether it be due to Harper's Australiophilia, or an acknowledgement that the model of STV recommended by the BC Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform two years ago is better than the first-past-the-post electoral system, Harper's gang are proposing to introduce STV at the federal level here at Canada.

Just how long can the Liberals hold out?

Greens demand inclusion in leadership debate, stage Hill press conference

The Green Party of Canada today held a press conference to demand inclusion in the televised leaders' debate in the next general election campaign, and to launch the www.demanddemocraticdebates.ca website.

Leader Elizabeth May and co-deputy leader Adriane Carr held the media event at Parliament Hill this afternoon, in which the Greens lobbied the media to include the party in the next debate.

Noting that the Greens are virtually tied with the Bloc Québécois for popular support, and that Canadian political parties are now primarily funded by taxpayers according to the votes they receive, May and Carr remarked that Canadians deserve to hear from the parties that they financially support - including the Greens.

Canada.com coverage

The press release in full:

Attention News Editors:
DemandDemocraticDebates.ca

OTTAWA, Dec. 14 /CNW Telbec/ - More than 660,000 Canadians voted for the Green Party in the last federal election and the latest public opinion polls show that the Green vote will be in the millions in the next election.

With its historic second-place finish in the recent London North Centre by-election, beating both the Conservative and NDP candidates, the Green Party confirmed its status as the fastest growing political party in Canada.

But party leader Elizabeth May is not yet allowed to participate in the leaders' debates during the upcoming general election which will likely be called early in the new year.

"Voters have a right to hear where all the major parties stand on the issues," Ms. May said today. "That's one of the cornerstones of democracy - an informed electorate. The continued exclusion of the Green Party from the leaders' debates is an affront to democracy in Canada."

DemandDemocraticDebates.ca is a national e-mail petition campaign aimed at the broadcast consortium - a group of TV network executives who control the debate content, format and which leaders get to participate. The DemandDemocraticDebates.ca website gives Canadians the opportunity to send a message directly to these decision-makers, adding their voice to an online petition demanding the Green Party leader's inclusion in the next leaders' debates.

According to Canada's Chief Electoral Officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley: "Canadians today draw their electoral information primarily from television... The public broadcast of a debate held by several leaders of registered political parties is not a contribution to the parties but the provision of a service to the public."

The Green Party's popular support has earned it the right to be included in the debates.

"It's a ludicrous situation," said Green Party Deputy Leader Adriane Carr. "Every Canadian voter had the opportunity to vote Green in the last two elections. Their tax dollars support us. Our popular support is virtually tied with the Bloc Quebecois'. Canadians deserve to hear from our leader. Besides, including a woman with the debating skills of Elizabeth May would liven up the debates for everyone," concluded Carr.

For further information: Camille Labchuk, (613) 882-4761

Coal is wonderful: Power Workers' Union

Just noticed it now, but apparently the Globe and Mail carried a "special information supplement" (also known as a multi-page advert masquerading as part of the newspaper) paid for by the Power Workers' Union, about how coal is actually quite clean, and is the energy source of the future. The PDF can still be found on the G&M website.

It also included an advert by Pace Energy, playing the "market of 1.3 billion people in China" card, attempting to convince Canadians to invest in coal mining in China. A rather ethical investment, seeing how coal mining in China kills approximately 20 Chinee every day due to lax safety standards, according to the BBC. That's 6,000 people a year.

But dodgy investments aside, just how clean can coal be? According to the propaganda piece... ermm, I mean, advert... clean coal contains 90% less mercury than normal coal. In other words, it still contains mercury, which will be burned and become part of that air that we breathe.

Something tells me this "clean coal" technology isn't quite there yet.

Dion's biggest test: Alberta's oil sands

Many people are waxing poetically about Stéphane Dion's environmental credentials. The new Liberal leader was praised for his progressive yet untimely legislation as environment minister, which was killed in late 2005 before it could be debated.

As a Liberal leadership contender in 2006, it was Dion who first made the environment a prominent issue within his personal policy platform. Alongside the economy and social justice, the environment was a major part of Dion's "three pillars" strategy - which is similar to the Green Party's "triple-bottom-line accounting" - stressing that all three policy areas need to be part of a pragmatic balance, and that a zero-sum approach that stresses one or even two of these three areas can never lead to a balanced policy agenda. Iggy and others quickly followed suit regarding Dion's environmental lead, helping it to become a major policy area of the Liberal leadership campaign. Several candidates, such as former Tory Scott Brison, gave the environment particular prominence in their platforms.

Add to that the "green attire" gimmick (and I don't mean any negative connotation with that word) of Dion's campaign, and it seems that Stéphane is going to be a major champion for the environment in Canadian politics, and especially within the Liberal Party.

Lovely. But how will all of this translate into official Liberal policy stance in practice? With a pro-business and neo-conservative government in power, one which extends particular deference to the oil-rich province of Alberta, what will a Dion leadership mean for Canadian politics?

National opinion polls show that the environment has become of major importance to most Canadians, with some polls even putting it above health care (which has led most polls for the past 15 years without hiccup). This has come as a great surprise and tremendous irritant for Harper's Tories, who hoped to quickly deal with the issue and move on to more economically-minded matters. But Canadians have shown their scorn for the current government's passing interest, and all four opposition parties have been quick to heap criticism at the Tories accordingly.

All of this combines to an expectation, for many observers, that the environment is about to become the political issue of the 21st century here in Canada - as some pundits have already argued. But even if this is the case, surely there will be a limit to the extent that Dion can put the environment at the forefront of the new Liberal agenda. And the question is - will Dion get that balance right? Will he be progressive and daring enough to please environmentalists? But if so, will he still be able to keep this country's entrepreneurs on side? And most importantly, and will be bring enough "average" Canadian voters alongside?

While the Chrétien and Martin Liberals did have their heart in the right place in terms of Kyoto and environmental legislation, greenhouse gas emission increased considerably under their reign. Part of this had to do with how the Liberals were so found of using the economy as a singular measure of Canada's success - particularly Martin. Turning deficits into surpluses was obviously the correct thing to do, in terms of improving Canada's economy and ensuring that we remained internationally competitive - but the extent of the economic focus led to the neglect of the environment file.

And now we're seeing the exact same thing, but to an even worse extent, under the Harper Tories.

Arguably the greatest challenge facing Dion in his quest to balance the environment with the economy will be how he and the new Liberals handle the Albertan oil patch - which ominously parallels the career of former Liberal prime minister Trudeau. Love him of loathe him, Pierre Elliott Trudeau had a lot of fortitude when he implemented the National Energy Program in 1980 - and he received tremendous scorn for it from Alberta.

Today, the Albertan oil sands (or tar sands, as many Greens refer to them) continue to be a massive economic benefit to Alberta (and indirectly to all of Canada). Yet, the profits of the oil sands are causing an economic overheating, leading to some Albertan communities being unable to cope with the infrastructural demand of a massive influx of workers. Real estate prices in Calgary, Edmonton, and other Albertan communities are reaching unaffordable levels, and could lead to a dangerous "bubble" scenario. The cost of living overall has greatly increased, causing Alberta's homeless population to swell.

And arguably most important of all, the oil sands are causing huge environmental degradation. The process of extracting the oil from the sands is itself a highly inefficient process, requiring tremendous amounts of water. And half of our oil heads south to the US, the world's most notably non-signatory of the Kyoto Protocol.

So just how does Dion and his new Liberal Party propose to strike a compromise with the Albertan oil sands? This issue could define his career, much as the NEP defined Trudeau's in the eyes of many Albertans.

Wariness of dual citizenship a parochial trait not befitting of Canadians

Why would new Liberal leader Stéphane Dion's dual citizenship of Canada and France make any Canadians feel insecure? Surely the reaction of this small minority can indeed be labelled as insecurity, if they are calling for him to renounce his French citizenship.

Canada is a young country, at least to those who aren't aboriginals. And we're all immigrants - including our Aboriginals. As such, Canada is very diverse, cosmopolitan, and multi-cultural. Because many Canadians' roots in this country go back only a handful of generations, it is understandable that they still have emotional (or even tangible) bonds with other countries, cultures and languages.

Why should we feel threatened by this reality? I would argue that this fact about the Canadian people is a strength, rather than a weakness. We are the most effectively multi-cultural country in the world - period. Having ties to literally every country on the planet gives us respect, ensures our opinions are listened to by the international community, and awards tremendous economic strength in terms of international economics.

Surely it is only the most parochial and provincial of Canadians who feels threatened by this reality, those who may never have bothered to venture outside of Canada's borders, and who see citizens of other countries as "the enemy".

As has been pointed out by many fellow bloggers already, former Canadian prime minister John Turner was born in the UK and held dual citizenship, and this was never an issue during his leadership of the country. And as the CBC pointed out on Friday, Dion is one among at least a dozen current Canadian MPs currently holding dual citizenship. Why single out Dion?

Since 15 February 1977, the Citizenship Act permits the holding of dual or multiple state citizenships. And many Canadians do just that. Why should we allow some rights for average citizens, and yet deny those to our leaders? If we don't find it a threat for ordinary Canadians to hold more than one passport, why do we suddenly panic when our leaders have them? Surely a single standard should be equally applied to all Canadians - not just legally as it does in the Citizenship Act, but also in terms of the rights of others that we as a society cherish and respect in an informal/unofficial manner.

Current Governor General Michaëlle Jean started an unfortunate precedent, when he renounced her French citizenship on 23 September 2005, "...in light of the responsibilities related to the function of Governor General of Canada and Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Forces." While French law does forbid French citizens from holding government or military positions in other countries, the France government was willing to wave this requirement for Jean, in light of her post being primarily ceremonial. Unfortunately, Jean still choose to renounce her French citizenship.

And thus the current "controversy" regarding Dion and his dual citizenship with France.

If anyone should have qualms regarding Dion's dual citizenship, if should be the French, given their civil code forbidding French citizens from holding government or military positions in other countries. But it is bizarre why such exclamations would come from fellow Canadians. Do we really doubt his loyalty to this country, as the leader of Canada's largest political party? Aren't his public statements that he is "100 per cent loyal to Canada" enough to conquer any doubts? Do we expect Stéphane to get a maple leaf tattooed on his left butt cheek before we believe his commitment to this country?

Let's all put these discussions into greater perspective before we open up yet another unimportant, intangible, and emotional debate that distracts us from the primary issues of governance at hand here in Canada.

Harper's SSM motion designed to fail, appease rednecks and centrists

175-123: the Conservative minority government's motion on same-sex marriage motion was defeated in Parliament on Thursday. A victory for all progressives. The regressive beliefs of Harper and his cronies publicly and officially defeated. And end to a dark chapter in 21st century Canadian politics. Hooray.

But is the self-congratulation amongst progressives a moot point? Did Stephen Harper not only expect the motion to be defeated, but actually want it defeated?

Vijay Sappani argues in a recent blog article that Harper knew the motion would fail, but still tabled the motion, in order to keep his promise from January's general election campaign. Sappani assumes that if Harper's Conservatives procure a majority after the next election, that we should expect Harper to reopen this issue yet again:

"While many think the SSM debate is over and closed, it will come back from the grave (if and) when Harper wins a majority, when he has enough numbers in the parliament, to win and to win enough seats he had to open it now."

While I agree with Sappani that Harper expected the motion would fail, I disagree that Harper actually wanted the motion to pass (at least for the time being). In fact, I reckon that Harper wanted the motion to be defeated, so as to put the issue to rest (again, at least for the time being).

Why? To increase his chances of winning a majority in the next general election, no doubt.

Tabling this motion appeases the majority of social conservatives who oppose same-sex marriage. While the motion did not pass, it was at least tabled by the Conservatives - and thus it looks like Harper tried his best (even if he genuinely knew the motion would be defeated). Harper thus keeps his election promise from January; and for those looking for a socially conservative messiah, they would still look to Harper before the leader of any other party.

But even more importantly, by ensuring that the motion would (rather quietly) fail, Harper would have an excuse to close the issue of same-sex marriage - a loud and concise closure, publicly communicated to the Canadian public, with "blue Liberals" and former Progressive Conservatives in mind. These are the voters who would potentially give Harper a majority government - fiscally conservative, socially progressive. Harper is no fool - he knows that he has to quiet down the extreme leanings of the "hats and horses" element of the new Conservative Party of Canada, if it is to appeal to enough centrist-leaning voters to give Harper a majority government in the next election.

Besides, socially-conservative legislation might not appeal to Harper's agenda as prime minister. Prior to politics, Harper was an economist. And during his formative years in government, he was a policy wonk. While he clearly holds socially conservative personal views, he's certainly not the hardcore evangelical that he is often demonized as - even if many of his new CPC colleagues could be labelled as such.

Perhaps Harper is not all that different to new finance minister Jim Flaherty - a typical Thatcherite neo-conservative, distrusting of big government, and a fan of the market over public involvement in services. He wants to reduce government spending, and thus is looking to cut as many "non-essential" government services as possible, and possibly even flirt with privatization of some essential services. And, quite rightly, he wants to tackle Canada's massive financial debt.

By examining Harper's track record over the past 10 months, fiscal conservatism clearly seems to be his forte. Especially when compared to how rushed the recent same-sex motion was, and how quick Harper was to bury the topic immediately after the vote.

By sticking to financial conservatism, rather than social conservatism, Harper can increase his appeal to centrist voters during this time of minority government. Whether he wants a majority government in order to do more of the same financial dirty work, or to be able to unleash his so-called "hidden agenda" of social conservatism (as many of his detractors put it), minimizing the "regressive" face of the party will enable him to attain that majority.

While Harper has gone on record as saying, "I've always been clear, I support the traditional definition of marriage", consider several other quotes he has made (about same-sex marriage and abortion - two obsessions of social conservatives), and how relatively restrained they sound:

"I have no difficulty with the recognition of civil unions for non-traditional relationships but I believe in law we should protect the traditional definition of marriage."

"But I'm very libertarian in the sense that I believe in small government and, as a general rule, I don't believe in imposing values upon people."

"But I've been very clear in this campaign - I don't believe the party should have a position on abortion."

"I don't believe an Alliance government should sponsor legislation on abortion or a referendum on abortion."

"My own views on abortion, I'm not on either pole of that and neither of the interest groups on either end of this issue would probably be comfortable with my views."

It is arguable whether Harper is strategically restraining his government because he wishes to "save up" any socially-conservative legislation until he has a majority government, or whether Harper honestly doesn't have any significant desire to introduce heavily socially-conservative legislation. But the one thing that is certain is that Harper is indeed restraining his government on topics of social conservatism.

Tabling a motion on same-sex marriage may not seem retrained on the part of Harper's government, but consider his determination not to alienate the blatantly social-conservative element of his government's support, combined with the actual language of the motion:

"...introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage without affecting civil unions and while respecting existing same-sex marriages." (emphasis was my own)

Clearly, Harper is doing his very best to keep the support of the "hats and horses" brigade, while also appealing to centrist voters. Or, in order words, strategic spin at its very best.

While bloggers will no doubt spend millions of electrons debating whether Harper has a "hidden agenda" that is being mothballed until a majority Conservative government is achieved, what is much more certain is that Harper knew his same-sex motion would be defeated in parliament, and that he wanted such an outcome.

With this in mind, why are we progressives in such a celebratory mood, given the pre-determined failure of Harper's same-sex motion? We've simply played into Harper's strategic hand, and have given him the excuse to moderate his party without alienating his socially-conservative support. Now that Harper has formally closed the issue (at least for now), he may succeed in removing the perception of socially-conservative "fangs" from the CPC, and thus extend its appeal to centrist Canadians who would not have considered voting Tory if a same-sex marriage debate was still looming.

So, the question looms - just who really won this latest round?

A response to Olaf's "Students should pay for university"

Olaf of The Prairie Wranglers yesterday posted a piece entitled, "Random Debate: Students should pay for university". In it, he argues against free and universal tuition - using statistics to argue that higher tuition in Canada isn't causing university to become the exclusive domain of the rich, and that free tuition is basicly a socialist aberration that stems from greedy people.

I actually enjoyed the piece, and take pleasure from reading the opinions and arguments of people from different points of view. So much more interesting than simply reading the blogs exclusively of one's own partisan stripe, which many bloggers have referred to as "singing among the choir".

But I don't agree with several points made my Olaf, and my response follows.

Well done to Olaf for encouraging bloggers with other points of view to respond and engage in debate. The blogosphere needs much more of it - and more bloggers like Olaf.

---

You referred to statistics (without citing a source) that suggested that increased tuition in Canada did not cause an according change in income distribution among university students. But what about the number of students whose families are genuinely below the poverty line? Are you suggesting those numbers remained the same, despite significant increases in tuition? I personally know several extremely bright individuals who didn't attend university due to cost - and that was almost a decade ago.

Even the most generous of student loans and Millennium Scholarship grants weren't enough to cover the complete costs of tuition, room and board prior to the tuition increases witnessed in the past 5-10 years. I'm not sure if the size of student loans and grants have kept up, but if not, then it would be even more difficult for students to fund their post-secondary education themselves.

Many students have to take several years off between high school and their tertiary education to save up money for tuition, room and board. Is this not wasted time? Would it not be better to allow students to pay for costs after their education is completed, when their career has started and their salary is much larger? This is obviously the logic behind student loans, but in practice, student loans don't even come close to covering the full costs.

If students are able to live at home during their post-secondary education, and/or tap into the Royal Bank of Mom and Dad, then costs aren't a problem. But students forced to pay their own way through tertiary education are getting screwed. Loans and grants simply aren't enough to cover the costs.

Students with parents who refuse to pay a share of their costs receive the same amount of loans and grants from the government as students who are partially funded by their parents. Why? Because the student loan system, rightly or wrongly, puts the moral imperative on parents to cover part of the costs. That's all fine and well, but what about the students whose parents refuse to pay? I don't see why they shouldn't be able to get larger loans/grants, at the very least.

If you're worried about students abusing a state-funded education system to simply party it up on the taxpayer's expense, as your image of John Belushi from the movie National Lampoon's suggests, then it's simply the rules for financial qualification need to be tightened up. Instead of qualifying for several years of university funding from high school results, perhaps high school results should only count for funding toward the first year of university, and each subsequent year's funding could be based upon receiving marks higher than a certain cut-off line, to ensure standards are maintained throughout a student's post-secondary education. And perhaps the more state funding someone receives, the higher their cut-off line to achieve financial support for the subsequent year would be. Not sure if I agree with this myself, as it places more stringent demands on the poor - but what would you think?

I may be a naive idealist, but I do think tertiary education should be free, just like elementary and secondary education is free. It encourages a meritocracy - the brightest and the best minds educated. That makes Canada internationally competitive.

Do I think all Canadians should go on to post-education? No. Do I think too many Canadians go to universities to study humanities, rather than going to trade schools, or simply going straight into work after high school? Definitely. But that doesn't mean increasing tuition is the best method to curb the number of those who attend. One possible (yet controversial) solution would be to have a relatively limited number of places that are state funded. Let the brain-dead students with rich parents (i.e. George W) pay their entire way through - much like overseas students are milked for enormous amounts of money to help subsidize the rest.

And why do you mention the Swiss system of choosing post-secondary eligibility relatively early in their scholastic careers? Is this meant to discredit "universal PSE"? Early-chosen eligibility has absolutely nothing to do with whether schools are privately or publicly funded. Schools could just as easily charge students 100% of costs, and still choose them at a young age. Just the same, a country could provide "universal LSE", and choose students during the final year of their high school. A big leap in logic on your part to tie the two items together.

I also feel your argument about people paying for their boss' children's tuition being unfair is a moot point. Your parents paid for your boss' elementary and secondary education, and his parents paid for yours. Just like I paid for your last hospital visit. So what? Everybody pays in, and everybody can take out. Surely if "Mr. Boss" has a higher income than his employees, then he's paying higher taxes, and thus funding the education system more than his less-well-off employee. Quite frankly - welcome to Canada, Olaf.

Playing devil's advocate, I don't agree with your statement that because universities are increasingly attempting to diversifying their income, that higher tuition must be a part of diversity. Theoretically speaking, all state-funded schools could receive a certain amount of guaranteed base funding from the government, and yet be free to top that up with whatever amount of funds they can raise through private fundraising or whatever else - and still have free or minimal tuition paid by the student. But I do agree that if tuition is purposely kept low by the government, then the government must be willing to step in to cover the cost in order to keep universities internationally competitive. I attended my first university program in BC during the NDP era, when tuition was frozen at a low level; however, the government wasn't covering the difference - leading to grad students and junior instructors being used and abused, and school infrastructure literally rotting away.

If government won't provide free post-secondary education, then at least we should be providing loans and grants significant enough to cover the full costs of post-secondary education for students who do not receive financial support from their family. Anything less, and Canada's post-secondary education system can no longer justifiably call itself a meritocracy. If a single bright mind is turned away from a thorough education due to financial constraints, all of Canada suffers.

The irony of Dion is delicious

One year ago, Liberal environment minister Stéphane Dion was awarded the "Fossil of the Year" award, in light of the Canadian government's lack of concrete action to avert our contribution towards climate change.

Fast forward to the present, and Dion is holding his first press conference as new Liberal leader, assuring the media that he is not limitied to a single issue (the environment).

From the CBC:

In his first news conference since winning the federal Liberal leadership, Stéphane Dion described himself as a "proud Quebecer" who is more than just a single-issue politician.

...

Dion also said he plans to focus on more than just the environment. He reiterated campaign promises to fight for economic prosperity, social justice and environmental sustainability.

Don't get me wrong - this post is not a swipe at Dion. I do not doubt his determination to improve Canada's environment - had Jack Layton not triggered the January 2006 election, Dion may have had the time to see his progressive environmental legislation passed through the House in early 2006. I'm actually quite pleased he has become top Grit, and hope the Greens can work with him and the new Liberals for the betterment of the entire country.

But perhaps it's particularly because I'm a Green, that I find this entire scenario hilarious. It's amazing how quickly things can change - radically - in Canadian politics.

But something tells me that Rona Ambrose won't be re-assuring the CBC that she's more than just a progressive environmentalist, come late 2007...

hat tip: The Prairie Wranglers

Dion to make a deal with Elizabeth May?

If Stéphane Dion wins the Liberal leadership tonight, would he be willing to make a deal with Elizabeth May and the Green Party?

A foresighted Liberal leader may begin to worry about strategic voting, and what the explosion of Green Party support in recent months will mean for the Liberals' chances of winning the next general election, and about maintaining power.

If the Greens are likely to find significant support in the next election, the Liberals under Dion may just be willing to make a deal to ensure that strategic voting does now hand Stephen Harper the reigns of Ottawa yet again. This may weigh heavily on the minds of the Liberals, given that the Greens do best in urban and progressive ridings - traditionally where the Liberals and NDP do best.

So here's the question - would Dion be willing to make a deal with May? Would the Liberals be willing not to run a candidate in Elizabeth May's riding and to publicly support her candidacy in that one riding, if the Greens would be willing to not run against the Liberals in a handful of "strategic" ridings (i.e. ridings in which the Liberals and Conservatives would be in close contention)?

May as an MP after the next general election would be an interesting prospect for a Liberal party gunning to either keep or gain a majority government. If the Liberals were progressive enough with their environmental legislation, they could receive the backing of both the Green Party and the NDP (and perhaps even the Bloc) - thus obliterating the Tories as regressive and isolated within the political spectrum.

On the other hand, if the Liberals' environmental policies under Stéphane "green" Dion isn't enough for the liking of the Green Party, Elizabeth May or other Green MPs could become their worst nightmare. Additionally, even if hypothetical Green MPs were to back the Liberals' environmental policies, how supportive would they be of other Grit positions of governance?

Hypothetically speaking, if both parties are willing to make a deal, it could work. And considering Dion and his supporters (including his dog named "Kyoto") have been draped in green today, you never know.

Stéphane Dion goes green!

Welcome to the bandwagon, Stéphane!

It's amazing how much the old-line parties are suddenly paying attention to the environment - the issue wasn't mentioned once in the January 2006 televised leadership debates!

Photos courtesy of Jeff Jedras (aka A BCer in Toronto), who is a delegate at the Liberal convention. Please give his blog a visit.

University prof writing article about Green success

Dr. Paul Nesbitt-Larking, a prof from Huron University College at Western, is writing a journal article about the Green Party's recent success in the London-North-Centre (LNC) byelection. It will contain a statistical analysis of poll-by-poll results, as well as an overview of the factors contributing to the success of the Greens.

As mentioned in an article in today's London Free Press, the Green Party made gains of between 30 and 40 per cent in some LNC polls since January's general election. Overall, the Green Party won 63 of the riding's 253 polls outright, and tied for the lead in three others. The majority of polls won by the Greens were previously held by the Liberals.

From the London Free Press article:

"It couldn't be clearer. There is a massive bleeding from all the old parties and enormous growth for the Greens," said Nesbitt-Larking.

Nesbitt-Larking said he thinks all three major parties should be concerned about the rise of the Greens, none more than any other.

He said there are likely two messages political observers should take from the London byelection.

"All major parties must be aware of the importance of the environment," he said. "This is a burning issue."

And, he said, political parties must understand voters are prepared to "dramatically shift their support" if they take their politics seriously.

A Green perspective - Martha Hall Findlay

I was extremely impressed with Martha Hall Findlay's speech at the Liberal leadership convention earlier this evening. She could use a little more polish (and a much better campaign team), but she is a very talented orator. I could easily see her becoming the Liberal Party's first female leader in the years to come.

Her speech was clear, based upon several key themes (rather than Brison's "rambling discourse", as one CPAC commentator put it), and delivered with passion. Miles better than either Brison or Volpe...