1  2  3  Next

Watching news reports about the Clean Air Act today, I couldn't help but feel that the proceedings could be aided by some neutral, largely non-partisan leadership. I think Elizabeth May could provide this leadership.

Anyone else have any thoughts?

   

She'd do better to point out what monkeys they are instead of getting sucked into the fray. Baird made it pretty clear yesterday that the committee is going nowhere, and that's just dandy with the Liberals.

The committee was a good idea, but he two largest parties don't want it to work.

   

Given that the committee is trying to amend the Conservatives' centerpiece air pollution/climate change bill, I would say that the Conservatives have a real vested interest in getting the committee to work.

Of course, not being in the room, I don't know who's initiating the partisan bickering. I suspect it's probably the Liberals, but I suppose, given the gravity of the situation that I'm biased toward this end.

What I can say for certain is that a leadership deficit has emerged, and we need someone to help fill the void. I think Elizabeth May could do that.

   

I have been interested in the Green Party and watching them very closely lately. I am impressed with Elizabeth May. She speaks well on the issues environmental and otherwise. She would definitely be an asset in the proceedings.

I foresee a time where she will find her parties words will resonate better with a Liberal minority government than with the current administration. I would hope the NDP would work with the Liberals as easily as they do with the Neo-Conservative environmental agenda.

   

More like an interest in getting the issue out of the headlines. It basically pits their core against those they hope to gain votes from. If the committee works to bring in real change, it will hurt them. If the committee fails, it will hurt them. They need things to fall apart because of the other parties while remaining clean themselves. I don't think they can manage that.



From what I've heard, it's both the Liberals and the Conservatives. They're too busy pointing fingers at each other to get any work done. The Bloc are mostly constructive, with a few partisan shots where it will get them votes.

The NDP are trying desperately to get this to work. I don't mean to paint them as angels either...the NDP needs a new medicare, a major accomplishment. Their best path to that is to be non-partisan and get a good plan through while letting the other guys look like idiots. Consider it partisanship by being non-partisan.



I think she could if she was elected. She knows her way around politics and understands how a third party can apply pressure better than most. To bring her in without being elected would look like a special favour or political grandstanding though, and would ultimately undermine her. Not to mention that the rules really don't allow for it, since it's a parliamentary committee and she's not a member of Parliament.



I have my doubts about that. I don't see the Greens winning enough seats to have official party status anytime soon. Without that, they don't get on committees and they don't a lot of time to speak in the House.

While I believe that Dion does have a real commitment to the environment, I don't see any Liberal up and comers, with the exception of Rodriguez, with the same vision outside of political opportunism. I certainly don't see it in the Liberal establishment.

I think that once Dion is gone, the Liberals lose any ownership of this issue. It will take about that long for the Greens to gain a real foothold.



Bit of a reality check here.

The NDP has voted against every Conservative confidence bill. The Liberals cannot say the same.

The NDP has been pushing for real measures and hard targets to reduce GHGs since global warming became an issue. The Liberals cannot say the same.

The NDP has had a plan, including costing, for meeting Kyoto forever. The Liberals cannot say the same.

The NDP, from top to bottom, has very little faith in Harper doing anything for the environment. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try though. As I said before, trying also has its political advatages.

The Greens, for their part, are a lot like the Mulroney legacy they grew from. I don't mind that as an alternative pary applying pressure, and I hope they do well in the next election.

They don't have a lot of strength in any given region either. They have a fairly even amount of support across the board. A little higher in BC, maybe a bit in Ontario, and they did really well in Alberta, but they haven't got that one region that will get them into a seat. Without a seat, they aren't likely to get into the debates. Without the debates, gaining enough support to get official party status is really tough.

I hope May will get into the debates and break the seatless thing, not least because the more people learn about the Greens, the fewer votes they will siphon from the NDP and the more they will take from the Conservatives and Liberals. I just don't see it happening anytime soon.

   

I'm sure you'd like to think so. But the fact of the matter is that preservation of the environment, whether you care to admit it or not, is, by nature, a conservative principle.

After all, what is being conserved?



But where are you hearing this? Most Canadian news outlets have a tendency to express a bias one way or the other. Without being in the room, we have little recourse other than to reserve judgement.



So, then, the NDP are the " noble defenders of the environment"? They've been far from non-partisan on this issue.



There's no reason why she needs to be elected in order to be involved. In fact, it's because she's unelected that she's the best person for the job. She has nothing to lose by working with all three parties.



If they can grow beyond their one-issue platform, the Green Party will be in good position to absorb NDP votes being driven from the party by Jack "Used care salesman" Layton.



I think that once Dion is gone, the Liberals lose any ownership of this issue. It will take about that long for the Greens to gain a real foothold.[/quote]

The Liberals, under Dion, don't have ownership of the issue right now. Nor do the Conservatives. Nor do the NDP. Nor, for that matter, do Green Peace, or the Sierra Club.

Noone owns this issue, because too many of these groups are trying to play it for partisan purposes.




Working with the Liberals is working with the neoconservatives. The Liberals are Canada's neoconservative party, like it or not.

   

The fact of the matter is that Conservatives have have a poor record when it comes to conserving. It's not up to me justify their failures, just to point them out.



From inside the room. Turns out they have cameras and microphones set up so we can hear what the politicians say. I find that a pale ale and a dark tobacco make the proceedings most palatable.



Nope, like I said, it's their best political move. They have been non-partisan, at least as much as is possible in a political arena. They've done so for partisan reasons. That's the way politics works.

They have been the defenders of the environment though. Look at Hansard as far back as you care to go. Its on the record.



You don't get to sit on parlimentary committees unless you belong to a party with official party status.



By that criteria, everybody on here should mail me a cheque. I promise to spend the proceeds on beer and cigarettes.




No she doesn't, and she knows that, and, as I'm sure I've said on here before, she understands how third party politics works. May is very effective at what she does. She'd be even more effective with a seat or two.

I heard somebody refer to her as an "earth mother" a few days ago, and I'm sure she'll take that title and use it, but the truth is that she'd be just as effective as a skinny old man because she understands how this stuff works.



They have a fairly complete, if entirely Mulroneyesque, platform. it's more comprehensive than anything Harper ever ran on, at any rate.



Ah, down to that are we?



They all own this issue, in bits and pieces. Hell, even the Conservatives got the water issue at least half right. The problem isn't with ownership, it's with conflicts that ownership presents with other things they own...or that own them.



It's politics, dude. If it isn't partisan, it doesn't exist.



No, the Conservatives are Canada's neo-conservative party. The Liberals are our neo-liberal party. Neither is good, and they are certainly hard to tell apart, but one wants to make government just small enough to fit in your bedroom, and the other doesn't care. Both want to make it big enough to fill their boardrooms. Neither is interested in letting you or me have much of a say...they feel we should be managed.

I've spent a lot of time managing not to be managed...

   

Demonstrably untrue. Double check Brian Mulroney's record on the environment: best in Canadian history. Care to try again?



Then edited by news outlets, often to support however they want to present the story. Unless you're watching on CSPAN. ?



As I recall, it was Jack Layton who first came up with the "hot air act" moniker that they and the Liberals so gleefully spouted. They have been anything but non-partisan. They've been as partisan as anyone.



Thanks. I needed that one.



That is the current practice, but it clearly could stand to change.



And your qualifications would be?



She can afford to be gutsy. She can afford to make a move that other parties would dismiss as politically unsound. Best reason to get her involved.



Thanks. I need that one, too.

Clearly, you aren't very familiar with their platform. Their "energy policy" alone was enough reason to chortle.

Furthermore, where does the Green Party sand:

On health care?
On crime?
On foreign policy?

We know where they stand on the environment. That's why they're strictly a one-issue party.



Afraid so. After all, you're the one who's hijacked a thread about the need for third-party non-partisan leadership in the Clean Air Act committee, and turned it into a "the NDP is the bestest ever" thread.



The trouble is that none of them are credible.



I would say that's precisely the problem.



:roll: Well, if you want to change the definition of neoconservative to brand the Conservative party as a neoconservative party, that's fine.

   

Mulroney was the best of a bad lot and did it only for votes. In addition to that, today's Conservatievs are not Mulroney's PCs. Go look at the record of the Reform/Alliance/Conservative Party.



All of the above.



Yup, and it helped to get the special committee formed.



Go look it up.



You want our government run by unelected representatives?



I'm unelected and like beer and cigarettes.



Involved, certainly. Sitting on a committee of elected representatives when she hasn't been elected? No.



It's no more bizarre than Harper's energy policy.



Somewhere between the Liberals and the Conservatives, mostly. Dion has kind of taken the Green stance on health care and, to a lesser extent, foreign policy as his own.



I hijacked nothing. I simply pointed out that May has not earned the right to sit on the committee and that it's the Liberals and Conservatives who are playing the partisan games. Did you see Baird's appearance?



Is May?



And which is the only party with seats in the House pushing to change the system?



I'm not changing the definition at all, I'm just going by what Leo Strauss, the father of neo-conservatism, said. He was very clear about mixing religious morality and ultra-nationalism in order to gain and retain power.

   

What record would that be? You want to judge the party's future record according to one year in office.



I'm glad you admit that the NDP has, in fact, been as partisan as anyone.



I think I'm still too busy laughing.



Frankly, it all comes down to the different spheres of society. Our elected representatives represent the polity. Business leaders represent the commercial sphere. Because the Green Party has yet to elect any MPs, I would treat them as a representative of the cultural sphere.

The government has promised consultation with industry. Bringing in Elizabeth May to help arbitrate the discussions on the Clean Air Act is simply a good recipe for a three folding initiative, and it's the probably the best way to get this thing done.

Is there a reason why you feel so threatened by the Green Party, Rev?



If that's your only qualification, you should understand when you're not hired.



Actually, I'm suggesting more than that. I'm suggesting she chair the committee, as a special arbitrator.



Actually, the Conservative party's energy policy is at least sound. Much more sound, in fact than the NDP's.

Funny, however, how it's Harper's energy policy. I think Jack Layton has been so successful in brainwashing his MPs into referring to the NPD as "Jack Layton and the NDP that even its supporters are unable to tell parties and their leaders apart.



There is no Green party policy worth discussing on any of these issues, except foreign policy, and even then Kyoto represents the entirety of their foreign policy.

It's their greatest weakness, and one they will need to resolve.



You took a thread, the topic of which was about how Elizabeth May could help settle the Clean Air Act issue, and made a blatant attempt to devote it to the NDP. That is not the topic of this thread.

I saw edited news pieces containing portions of Baird's appearance, which is why I'm reluctant to divest him of any blame for the degeneration of the committee.



I think May is as credible as any of them, if not more.



Only one? I understand that both the Conservatives and the NDP are in favor of various electoral reforms, including senate reform.

Which is the only party to actually introduce legislation to this effect?



Clearly, you know nothing of neoconservatism, except as a political buzz phrase.

The use of "religious morality" for political moral capital is part of neoconservatism, but its only a small part. Furthermore, would you try to pretend that the Liberals haven't done the same thing by promoting a political ideal of ecclesiastic atheism? Furthermore, doesn't the NDP's roots as a Christian political party, under J.S. Woodsworth and Tommy Douglas, qualify in the same regard? But god forbid that Stephen Harper should say "god bless Canada".

Furthermore, the Liberal party has, for the past 20 years, been Canada's flagbearers of the most important element of neoconservatism: Straussian elitist rule.

The "Conservative hidden agenda" has certainly been the best example of the noble lie that Straussian thinkers advocate.

Furthermore, who is it, again, who has resurrected the "Great Parties" ideal that skips hand-in-hand with the neoconservative tendency to frame politics as an epic battle between good and evil?

It has unquestionably, undoubtedly, been the Liberals.

   

They've been around a lot longer than a year. The Reform/Alliance/Conservatives have a record on this going back to Mulroney's time in office when Lucien Bouchard first brought it up.



Before the committee started, certainly. Outside of committee, of course. Inside the committee they have chosen to try to work with everybody.



Fine, choose to remain ignorant then.



Hey, we could put the Carlton Showband in charge of Bev Oda's file.



And I would have no problem with May, or anybody else, taking part in those talks. That is different than putting them on a parliamentary committee though.



On the contrary, I've been fairly outspoken in the past about the need for them to be allowed into election debates and the need for proportional representation so that the Greens and other smaller parties have a chance to grow.



I never said that I should be hired, I said everybody on here should mail me a cheque, which I promised to spend on beer and cigarettes. I was being sarcastic and pointing out the inanity of your position.



You're suggesting putting an unelected representative on a parliamentary committee.

Would I prefer to see May chairing than the Conservative fool that was given the job? Certainly, but that's not the issue.

Do I think that unelected representatives should be given seats on parliamentary committees? Not a chance. Setting a precedent for unelected representatives to chair Commons committees is a really bad idea.



The Conservative's energy policy ties us to 19th century technology. How is that sound?



Harper has a well-earned reputation going back to at least his NCC days for being a notorious micro-manager. All indications are that those tendencies have gotten worse, not better, since he came to power.



So if you don't like a policy, it's not worth discussing?



No, I addressed a number of bad ideas and some misinformation you were promoting.



You should watch the whole thing. Baird uses his answers to NDP and Bloc members to slam the Liberals, the Conservatives on the committee use their questions to attack the Liberals and Baird answers by agreeing with them, then slamming the Liberals some more.

Baird does not answer any questions about government plans or policies.

The rest isn't as dramatic as the clips you saw, but the blatant Conservative partisanship is there.



She's been fawning over Dion in about the same way she fawns over Mulroney. There are rumours that she's going to try to merge the Greens with Liberals. While I doubt those Liberals are true, they stem from her actions and words over the last month or so.



The NDP is favour of abolishing the Senate. The view on Harper's tinkering is that it won't hurt, but it won't actually accomplish anything.

The Senate isn't what needs to be reformed though. Our first past the post electoral system is. The Conservatives have refused to take any substantive action on that, instead paying it lip service when pressed. Just like the Liberals.



Bullshit. I just differentiate between neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism. I don't agree with either, but I recognise the differences.

   

The Green Party would make a good party if they toned down all that environment stuff.

   

It isn't realistic to consider the new Conservative party and the old Progressive Conservative party the same party. The Progressive Conservative party was a party with an aristocratic tradition. The Conservative party is a party with a grassroots tradition. They funtion entirely differently (and this is another reason why it's inacccurate to label them a neoconservative party).



Partisanship is partisanship, regardless of where it occurs. Thank you for admiting that the NDP have, in fact, been as partisan as anyone.



It's funny that you should phrase it like that, because let's face it: the NDP has no record. They've enjoyed the convenience of being an opposition party their entire existence (at the federal level), and have never been the ones to have to worry about how to make an NDP proposal work.

To cite the "NDP record on the environment" is a crock.



The G8 and OPEC have all made room at the table for NGOs. That's every reason why the Canadian government can and should do the same, particularly on this issue.



So then you're suddenly opposed to this idea because it's change? Or because it lets your party's premier competition come to the table?



I'm sure you would be in favor of an unworkable system like proportional representation -- the NDP would never have to worry about how to impliment it. Of course, the problem with proportional representation is that it severs the link of responsibility between politicians and the people they're expected to represent. That's why it's a terrible idea.



The two propositions have nothing in common.

Elizabeth May = qualified.
You = not quallified.

Notice the difference?



As a matter of fact, I am.



And why is that? Even an unelected chairperson of such a committee still has to work within the boundaries of the committee's discussion. It isn't as if May could force the implimentation of some hairbrained Green Party scheme. At best, she would be the one fostering the negotiation between the other parties in the committee.



Speaking of remaining ignorant...



Well, by all accounts that I'm hearing from within the party, this reputation is almost entirely a Liberal party invention, with little or no basis in reality.

According to my MP, (paraphrasing) "Stephen likes to lead by example. He ensures the job gets the job done by helping as much as he can."

He isn't a hands-off leader. Personally, I think that's a good thing.



If a policy isn't feasible, it isn't worth discussing. Furthermore, if a policy doesn't exist...

[quoteNo, I addressed a number of bad ideas and some misinformation you were promoting.[/quote]

:roll: And what "misinformation" would that be?



Which is the impression one gets from watching the news clips. Which is precisely why some non-partisan leadership is needed.



Rumors and innuendo. As long as you're basing all of this on credible sources, like rumros and innuendo...



The first-past-the-post electoral system works just fine. It maintains a direct link between politicians and the people who elect them, and retains that direct accountability. Whereas, under proportional representation, MPs would have no consituents to answer to. Proportional representaiton is a recipe for the death of populism within our democratic system. Ultimately, it is only an element of populism (however strong or weak) that makes democracy work.



If you knew anything about neoconservativism, you could tell the difference between a neoconservative party like the Liberals, and a conservative party like the Conservatives.

But if you need any more education on the topic, you go ahead and let me know.

   

Which is why I noted the Reform/Alliance/Conservative Party in contrast to Mulroney's party.



Good. Now stand up and admit that Elizabeth May, who has spent her career as a political activist and is now the leader of a political party, is also partisan.



Wow, so you deny that the Conservatives had a record before coming to power, refuse to see the Bloc's record, and I guess you likely deny that the Liberals also had a record during periods when they sat in opposition. How convenient for you. Nothing exists unless you say it does.

The NDP has a good environmental record. They have spoken out what they support and have voted accordingly.




There should be room made for them. That room should not be made in a venue designed for elected representatives though.



No, I'm opposed to putting unelected representatives on parliamentary committees because it is undemocratic. In this case it would likely even be beneficial to what the NDP is trying to accomplish, and it would certainly set the Harperites back on their asses, but it would set a precedent of appointing unelected people to positions meant to be held by elected officials.



There are many kinds of proportional representation and your attempts to present the only option as pure list voting are either ill-informed or dishonest.



How is Elizabeth May qualified? Is she more qualified than David Suzuki? Maybe we could Bob MacDonald or Jay Ingram in. Professor Blair (no relation) at the U of W is qualified. Perhaps we could fly Tim Flannery up from Australia or George Monbiot in from England. There are any number of experts inside and outside of Canada who are more qualified than Elizabeth May. Since none of them are elected either, perhaps you should justify your preference for May. Or perhaps you should accept that without winning a seat, the major qualification for the position has not been met.

By the way, I'm perfectly qualified to drink beer and smoke cigarettes, which is all I ever claimed.



So you don't like democracy?



At best it would be setting an unfortunate precedent that would be open to partisan abuse later. At worst, May's own partisanship would cause her to bias the discussions and the final outcome.



Sorry, maybe I should have said 17th century, since they love burning coal too.

Hey, why won't they sign on to reduce mercury? I thought they wanted to deal with non-ghg pollution as well.



From everything I've heard from within the Conservatives, from the other parties, and from the press, Harper is just as dictatorial as ever.



Ah, and only you get to decide what's feasible.



That May is non-partisan. That Liberals are the only ones being partisan on the committee. That the Conservatives are doing things properly.



How is the leader of a political party non-partisan?



I'm basing my assessment on things she's said into microphones with the cameras rolling.



It doesn't work "just fine" at all. Two parties are consistently over-represented. The NDP and the Greens are consistently under-represented. Worse than that, it skews people's choices because they too often vote to keep somebody out instead of getting somebody they really want in. It leads to an excess of partisan bickering.

You've again presented a straight list system as the only choice as well. As I pointed out before, that shows that you either don't understand what's being considered or you are seeking to misinform others.



If I need an education on anything, I'll seek out somebody who knows what they are talking about, thanks.

   

And yet, you used the to-date unimpressive action of the current Conservative party -- although recent actions are much more encouraging -- to derride the well-acclaimed accomplishments of the Mulroney Progressive Conservatives.

You really can't have it both ways.



Elizabeth May has been far from partisan.



The current Conservative party didn't have a record prior to coming into power, for the same reason the NDP still doesn't -- at the federal level, at least.



Canadian political adages: it's easy to govern from the opposition benches.



Why not? The decisions made by this committee will inevitably affect people representing the other spheres of society. It's a lack of involvement by the other spheres of society that have led to unsustainable sociopolitica/economicl arrangelemts.



Excluding outside participants from parliamentary committees is what's really undemocratic.



Any of the propositions, many of which I've heard, result in the election of politicians who can't be held accountable for their constituents. I am absolutely opposed to that.



Why don't we let David Suzuki in, too? He certainly doesn't seem to have much to say in regards to directing scientific evidence into policy, but he sure does have the science down. Couldn't hurt. Let him in.



I prefer a more complete democracy, which is precisely what my proposition entails.



The current system is far more open to partisan abuse, because it doesn't include the practice of recruiting someone who at least can be non-partisan.



Perhaps you might have noticed all the big-money grants for renewable energy. Then again, evidently not.



And who are you hearing this from? Intersting how no one is talking about this, other than Liberals.



Evidently, I'm a more qualified judge than you.



Perhaps you may want to take a gander at this:

http://www.gateway.ualberta.ca/view.php?aid=7565

I haven't given the Tories a free ride. Given that I support them, why would I advocate for the recruitment of non-partisan leadership if I thought they were up to the task? How about that one, smart guy?



No MPs in the house. No caucus to lead. No voters to realistically worry about. Nothing to lose. Everything to gain.



The cameras were rolling on Mike Duffy live when she said she hadn't done any of those things. So, if we're basing this on thisngs she's said into microphones with the cameras rolling, your rumors and innuendo have zero credibility.



Neither the Greens nor the NDP are underrepresented. If they can't get the votes necessary to win in a given riding, then that's simply their problem, not the system's. Proportional representation sounds a death knell for direct accountability, and democracy.



I understand the propositions just fine. They simply don't hold water. Period.



That would clearly be an improvement over whoever you've been asking about the topic. Like I said, I'm right here for your benefit.

   

1  2  3  Next