• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

New Canadian Politics Thread

The guy who came second in the green party leadership race is an eco-socialist and a very passionate guy. If he wins, the party will move even harder left, but I don’t see them being any more of a factor.
 
Aberdeen said:
Realistically the greens should merge with the NDP.
Click to expand...


If the plan going forward is to basically become a socialist party that nominally has the environment as their top issue, then yeah, they may as well. At that point, there's not much purpose to them existing as a separate entity from the NDP.

Though if they do want to still exist and be relevant as a stand-alone political entity, I think they'd do better if they made a strong environmental plan the centerpiece of their platform, and then for the rest, staked out positions that'd put them in the center, somewhere on the political spectrum between the Libs and CPC. Especially if the CPC approach after this election is to run farther to the right in pursuit of the PPC.

And if they do that, they should also throw their full support behind Trudeau's "ranked ballots" idea.
 
Aberdeen said:
Realistically the greens should merge with the NDP.
Click to expand...
But the NDP has always been awful on the environment. Leftist does not equal environmentalist. For example, don’t you think the NDP would go all in on open pit rare earth metals mining if they had some assurance that all the industry jobs would be unionized?

And just because the other major parties have realized that climate change is real doesn’t mean the Greens should yield any ground to them on environment issues. But they did.
 
manny said:
But the NDP has always been awful on the environment. Leftist does not equal environmentalist. For example, don’t you think the NDP would go all in on open pit rare earth metals mining if they had some assurance that all the industry jobs would be unionized?

And just because the other major parties have realized that climate change is real doesn’t mean the Greens should yield any ground to them on environment issues. But they did.
Click to expand...
Parties shift a lot. The current Libs and NDP have shifted left of late, which is why the Lib pro-pipeline position still feels weird and out of place.

Before May, the Greens used to be more of a centrist party. If they wanted to stake themselves as a pro-environment but fiscally centrist party, there's a place for that. Basically,become the new red Tory party.

The other option is that they take up the controversial opinions on the left. Like I think technically they had UBI in their platform, but the heck if I ever heard that from them. If they came out strongly for a basic income, and other issues like that that that are not mainstream enough for the major parties, that also works.

But yeah, otherwise they really do just eat votes, and have no true purpose.
 
LeafGm said:
Still playing the victim, to the bitter end:





...now, I'd like to give her the benefit of the doubt. And you've also got the acknowledge that it must be incredibly difficult breaking into the Canadian federal leaders club when even up to this point, it's almost exclusively been a Christian-caucasian sausage-fest.

But no matter what her positive attributes may have been, she seemed to have piss-poor political instincts, leadership skills, and no capacity whatsoever to accept any personal blame.

The Green Party also needs to figure out what, exactly, is the point of their continued existence, now that every other major party offers some variety of plan that promises to tackle climate change. Being a one-issue or one-person party won't work anymore (especially with the PPC also around to compete for protest votes), and I'm not sure that trying to run left of the NDP is a viable path forward for them either.
Click to expand...

I wish I still had Twitter access so that I could put this clueless idiot and her persecution/martyr complex on blast.

She didn't break through any barriers. It's the Green Party, the clown car of federal politics. So of course a wholly unqualified moron like her would get the job simply because she is a woman of color. Her sex and her race are the only reasons why her incompetence was excused all this time. And Paul only made things worse for herself by not only being stupid but combining it with being stubborn. She was never going to win in that riding but she refused to run anywhere else. She put her preference and personal convenience ahead of being pragmatic and running in a place where a Green Party candidate might have actually had a chance of winning. Or maybe she wanted to have a built-in excuse for failing.
 
lecoqsportif said:
Remark that the only province absent from that list is the Moetocracy of SK.

With their population, they should be roughly the same as Manitoba or NS. They are roughly 6X those two combined.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's a bad map that doesn't really highlight the problem very well.

Per 100K is the way

Alberta: 487
Sask: 407
Ontario: 38
Quebec: 74
New Brunswick: 83


Fookin shameful in the prairies
 
WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou said:
I wish I still had Twitter access so that I could put this clueless idiot and her persecution/martyr complex on blast.

She didn't break through any barriers. It's the Green Party, the clown car of federal politics. So of course a wholly unqualified moron like her would get the job simply because she is a woman of color. Her sex and her race are the only reasons why her incompetence was excused all this time. And Paul only made things worse for herself by not only being stupid but combining it with being stubborn. She was never going to win in that riding but she refused to run anywhere else. She put her preference and personal convenience ahead of being pragmatic and running in a place where a Green Party candidate might have actually had a chance of winning. Or maybe she wanted to have a built-in excuse for failing.
Click to expand...
This is a bit harsh. Paul got the leadership job because she was the best candidate among a field of not very good candidates. That speaks more to a very weak party that had no mentoring in place for younger talent during the entire decade plus that May was leader.

And when you say "her sex and her race are the only reasons why her incompetence was excused all this time", how long do you think her bad judgement was excused, exactly? Paul was elected leader last October so she didn't even last a year. Jenica Atwin crossed the floor in June, David Suzuki began criticizing Paul publicly in the Spring, and the federal council started the process of trying to remove Paul in July. At that point she had been leader for 9 months, and they were already trying to kick her out. Justified, probably, but what exactly was "excused"?

There's a concept called the glass cliff, which Paul did not refer to, which I think you need to consider. I'm not sure it applies here (because the party is a huge mess anyway and being leader would be like herding rabid cats) but I'm open to the idea.

And anyway, there are enough dudes putting Paul on blast on twitter for saying that race and sex might have played a role in how she was treated. No need to pile on.
 
manny said:
This is a bit harsh. Paul got the leadership job because she was the best candidate among a field of not very good candidates. That speaks more to a very weak party that had no mentoring in place for younger talent during the entire decade plus that May was leader.

And when you say "her sex and her race are the only reasons why her incompetence was excused all this time", how long do you think her bad judgement was excused, exactly? Paul was elected leader last October so she didn't even last a year. Jenica Atwin crossed the floor in June, David Suzuki began criticizing Paul publicly in the Spring, and the federal council started the process of trying to remove Paul in July. At that point she had been leader for 9 months, and they were already trying to kick her out. Justified, probably, but what exactly was "excused"?

There's a concept called the glass cliff, which Paul did not refer to, which I think you need to consider. I'm not sure it applies here (because the party is a huge mess anyway and being leader would be like herding rabid cats) but I'm open to the idea.

And anyway, there are enough dudes putting Paul on blast on twitter for saying that race and sex might have played a role in how she was treated. No need to pile on.
Click to expand...
A bit harsh? Maybe I'd be less harsh on her had she put on her big girl pants and owned her failure. But no, she's just deflecting and blaming everyone else for her shortcomings. That's not what a leader does. She whines about the glass ceiling? Well hopefully the glass in her bathroom mirror is still intact so she can take a good look at it. She'll see right away who's to blame for her current misfortune.

The reality is that she was a garbage candidate from a garbage party that got itself bogged down in issues it hasn't given nearly enough thought to. There was infighting because the person who's supposed to be in charge was too busy whining about how unfair everything is to her. Nobody wants to hear it and excuses are for losers. Own your shit.
 
lecoqsportif said:
That’s all fair, but she could have run in a different riding. Nothing wrong with a Green leader parachuting onto Vancouver Island.

Toronto Centre? Yikes.

View attachment 10122
Click to expand...
That was a terrible decision. Most optimistic scenario, maybe she finishes third. And I agree that Paul could have parachuted into BC with little concern (its what Brampton's own Jagmeet Singh did!) The best decision for the party would have been for Paul to run in Saanich--Gulf Islands, but Elizabeth May doesn't want to get a real job.

Anyway, Paul is clearly paying the price for that choice.
 
manny said:
That was a terrible decision. Most optimistic scenario, maybe she finishes third. And I agree that Paul could have parachuted into BC with little concern (its what Brampton's own Jagmeet Singh did!) The best decision for the party would have been for Paul to run in Saanich--Gulf Islands, but Elizabeth May doesn't want to get a real job.

Anyway, Paul is clearly paying the price for that choice.
Click to expand...
Liz May can barely walk from here to there without a cane and a 15 minute head start but like most boomers she just wants to keep warming a chair and to keep being an impediment to someone who might succeed her. The only way to get rid of her may be to make her a Senator. Otherwise she'll be carried out of the Commons feet first.
 
I guess I’m the outsider here. I thought Paul was a good choice for leader. Well educated, good speaker, and did have exposure to the workings of government. I agree her determination to run in her Toronto riding was foolish and with no funding to run her campaign an exercise in futility. However, I think she would have been an asset in parliament.
Seeing how her short time as leader played out I’m having difficulty understanding why the Green’s elected
her to lead the party.
 
anne25 said:
I guess I’m the outsider here. I thought Paul was a good choice for leader. Well educated, good speaker, and did have exposure to the workings of government. I agree her determination to run in her Toronto riding was foolish and with no funding to run her campaign an exercise in futility. However, I think she would have been an asset in parliament.
Seeing how her short time as leader played out I’m having difficulty understanding why the Green’s elected
her to lead the party.
Click to expand...
If she had the support of the party, yeah, could have had a chance. If only she ran in Spadina Fort York maybe the Greens could have won 2 seats off Liberal scandals.

But her big problem was she was basically running for herself. She really wanted the party to help hand her what she wanted, rather than go around and try to help the party. Had she run out West, or even somewhere with some Green votes already like a Guelph, could have worked out. If she made it in, could have been a presence in Parliament like May was at least. But she chose somewhere where there was truly no chance of that happening.

And then I'm sure sometime we'll learn all that went on in the backroom, but for a party that for years ran full slates of candidates to only find people in 3/4 of the seats is simply inexcusable. And in the end, that's really what cost her. You can't be a leader and destroy the national presence of your party. Simple as that.
 
UWHabs said:
If she had the support of the party, yeah, could have had a chance. If only she ran in Spadina Fort York maybe the Greens could have won 2 seats off Liberal scandals.

But her big problem was she was basically running for herself. She really wanted the party to help hand her what she wanted, rather than go around and try to help the party. Had she run out West, or even somewhere with some Green votes already like a Guelph, could have worked out. If she made it in, could have been a presence in Parliament like May was at least. But she chose somewhere where there was truly no chance of that happening.

And then I'm sure sometime we'll learn all that went on in the backroom, but for a party that for years ran full slates of candidates to only find people in 3/4 of the seats is simply inexcusable. And in the end, that's really what cost her. You can't be a leader and destroy the national presence of your party. Simple as that.
Click to expand...
She was and remains focused exclusively on herself. The Green Party was just a means to an end for her. And for her to run in Toronto Centre, a riding that anyone could have told her she had no hope of winning, exposed her as either stupid, stubborn or both. The combination of hubris and abysmal political judgement demonstrates that she is unfit to lead. She simply doesn't know what she's doing but is too full of herself to take advice from anyone else. She does what she wants and when it blows up in her face she just blames it on systemic racism and misogyny.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top