Bitch slap to the Conservatives? (Updated)

Update: Parliament Prorogued. The Governor General has allowed a stay of political execution for the Conservatives by recessing Parliament until January. Fun times.

Green Commercials

The Green Party has just released their first ever national commercial campaign. The series of commercials features May on the train speaking about various issues. The commercials can be viewed at the Green's YouTUBE channel. I think this definitely reflects their growing popularity and importance as a party. As it stands, besides the "The Parties 2008" spots on CBC that are free for all parties (even fringe), the only parties with National ad campaigns are PC, NDP, Liberal, and now Green. I like the commercials, they're simple and constructive, not attacking.

The ABC Plan

Check out this website (thanks to Saskboy for the link) if you're curious about specific examples of the Conservatives flouting of law, order, ethics, the welfare of Canadians and other frivolities such as "the truth", "equality", and "human decency". My favorite is #1 because it is the most recent and is fresh in my mind but they're all good. However, I also like this one and this one (especially in the light of Harper's tough stance on crime for the election). And this one is pretty stupid and this one is quite interesting. Oh well I could go on and on. You know what I don't like? When a party that wants to be re-elected into power makes new campaign promises. It just makes me think, "Oh yeah? If you think these things are important why didn't you do them when you were in power?". If they were doing a good job, the best thing they would be able to say would be, "look at what we've done, we'll be doing more of that".

If you don't know, "ABC" stands for anything but conservatives. Since we are not a two party system, this plan leads us down the path of strategic voting, voting for a less desirable candidate to reduce the chances of an even less desirable candidate taking the seat. While I'm all for sending the conservatives packing, the trend of strategic voting should be taken with a grain of salt. Check out this list if you are considering voting strategically. There are relatively few ridings in which voting strategically would actually make a significant difference to the outcome. Also, remember that every vote for your party means more federal funding (if it secures more than 2% of the vote that is) even if it doesn't win seats. FYI, according to the list there are only 39 ridings in which Green supporters should even consider voting strategically if they favor the ABC plan.

Talking to Politicians: The Green Party

I sent the following email to Amber Jones of the Green Party of Saskatchewan:

On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 12:33 PM, [CP] wrote:
Hello Ms.Jones,
I am an archaeologist in Saskatchewan. I'm currently attending the University of Saskatchewan Masters in Archaeology program but I have been living and working as an archaeologist doing cultural resource management in Saskatchewan for 4 years now. I was curious as to your stance on cultural resource management in Saskatchewan. I know the Green Party is concerned with environmental and native issues, but are there any plans for reform of the heritage branch? Perhaps more incentive for companies to follow protocol, harsher punishments for companies who willingly violate regulations or a better inclusion of historic sites within the legislation to protect our heritage? I know this is less of a hot button issue than environmental protection but I see the archaeology in the province being destroyed day by day and while this is somewhat inevitable in light of industry, there are ways to protect these resources through awareness, avoidance and archaeological recovery before they are lost forever. Does the Green Party have an interest in these concerns and a plan to address them? Thank you very much for your time and any information you may have! I look forward to voting Green.

Today, I got my response from the Green Party (see below) and then I decided to send the same email, with a few modifications (the party names changed; the "I know the Green Party is concerned with environmental and native issues, but are there any plans for reform of the heritage branch?" changed to "Are there any plans for increasing resources or positive reform of the heritage branch"; and the "I look forward to voting Green" replaced with "your response will help determine my vote"), to all the major political parties to see what they say. So this is the first part of a multi-part series that I will post as the answers trickle in. Fun times.

This is what Amber Jones had to say:

Hi [CP],

Thanks for your interest. The Green Party wants to ensure that we have adequate funding to protect both natural areas and our heritage resources. We will ensure further protection of existing parks and heritage sites, and increase the number of protected areas. This will be done both by expanding our national park system and by working with provinces, territories, and aboriginal peoples, including working with the heritage branch. We will purchase private land where necessary and adequately fund Parks Canada. We will also provide more interpretation so as to educate people on the importance of natural and historical sites.

As far as reforming Saskatchewan's heritage branch, the GPS does not have any specific policies, just a commitment to protecting our natural and historic resources. However, we will be having policy forums in the coming months as we prepare for the next provincial election and I would love to speak to you (as my role as leader of the Green Party of Saskatchewan) on what the best way to protect Saskatchewan's resources are.

Amber Jones

If you would like to contact Ms.Jones her email is ajones@greenparty.ca and the Green Party's provincial website is here. FYI the Greens were the only ones with an actual person as the "contact us", the other parties had general email addresses.

p.s. The reason I went provincial instead of federal is because my issue with cultural resource management is by and large a provincially designated issue except for certain federal jurisdictions like national parks.

Media to Greens: Fine! Be that way!

Yesterday the announcement went out that the major networks that will be broadcasting the leaders debate on Oct.1st will allow Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party, to participate. That means the debate will have five podiums, not just four, which will stand in front of leaders from the Conservatives (Stephen Harper), the Liberals (Stephane Dion), the New Democrats (Jack Leyton), the Bloc Québécois (Gilles Duceppe), and now the Green Party. This is in the wake of an announcement (2 days ago) that, due to major party leader protests, May would be banned from the debates or the debates would not take place at all. What a thrilling time for democracy! The recognition that a party that took 4.5% of the votes in the 2006 election (which secured them federal funding) and is running 306 candidates in the upcoming election (there's a total of 308 ridings for those of you who don't remember) is not a "fringe party".

FYI the Conservatives and Liberals got 36.3% and 30.2% respectively, the NDP got 17.5%, and the Bloc got about 10.5%. So 4.5% isn't too shabby considering the next most popular group was independants with about 0.5% (to illustrate: that wouldn't even fill the Green Bay stadium pictured to the left. I'm sure they all car-pooled) and like 1/4 of those votes were won by one guy (André Arthur who was elected as an independent candidate in the Quebec City-area riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier) and he won a seat for that! A little over 20,000 votes as opposed to the Greens over 660,000 votes (that would fill Lambeau stadium like 9 times). Does that make sense!? He's running again you know, does that mean he should he be included in the leaders debates? Yes he should if all we are basing inclusion on is whether or not a party has a seat in the House of Commons (which is why Jim Harris was excluded from the debates in 2006). Obviously Andre isn't the leader of a federal party so he shouldn't be included on those grounds but hey, neither is Gilles, he only represents one province so why is he there? Plus, with separatist support at an all time low since 1993, current polls suggest the Greens may beat out the Bloc this time popularity-wise. But I digress because now the Greens have an MP and with more than a little cajoling by the concerned voting public, threats of legal action by the Greens, and some recent yet bland changes of heart by the major party leaders, the Greens are in the debates. Huzzah!

"Now wait a minute!", you might say (if you were paying attention to the above bracketed sidebars), "why are the Greens only running 306 candidates this year when last year they ran 308?". Good question! Well the Greens and the Liberals have agreed not to run opposing candidates in their leaders ridings. That means May, who does not have a seat, but has chosen to run in the Nova Scotia riding of Central Nova (currently held by Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay). The Greens won only 2% of the vote there in 2006 but they are currently a close 3rd in the polls. In turn the Liberals gain an ally to support their new pro-Green image (Green candidate Gilles Mercier was not a significant threat to Stephane's seat in the last election but neither was anyone else). By the way, this deal was sited as one of the complaints against letting May into the debate. Oh, and the Greens also won't be opposing Bill Casey in the Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley district (which is in Nova Scotia). He's an independent but the Greens like him, he used to be a Conservative but he was expelled from the party when he refused to support Harper's 2007 budget that didn't honour the Atlantic Accord (Oh that makes sense because he's an MP from Nova Scotia! Right!). Remember that? That time the Conservatives didn't honour the Atlantic Accord? Yeah. Anywho, now the Conservatives have all his campaign money and are using it to run a candidate against him and it is quite the soap opera! So the Greens figure it's the least they can do. They talk about the story here on the Green Party website.

The Green Party of Canada is part of a global alliance of Green parties founded on 6 key principles: ecological wisdom, non-violence, social justice, sustainability, participatory democracy, and respect for diversity. The 2008 political platform will be released soon but the 2006 platform included such gems as reforms to mass transit systems, health care, and taxation and implementation of legislation concerning equity and support for women, the priorities of Aboriginal peoples, arts and culture, National Parks, health care, human rights and immigration, animal cruelty, government accountability, and, of course, protection of ecologically sensitive areas, decreasing pollution, and the like.They're also into subsidizing and lowering tuition costs, providing affordable housing, electoral reform, tax cuts for low-income Canadians, revitalizing our international role as peace-keepers, fair trade, long walks and sunsets. Their pet peeves are sad kittens and mean people. While some might argue there plans are ultimately too naive to put into place, I think the transparent optimism of their goals is what makes them such a popular alternative choice. Even if they won't realistically become the next leading party or official opposition, I think that recognizing the importance of this message is a very smart move by the Liberals.