Liberals won't run candidate against Green leader

[Burninator]

Interesting move.

On the one hand I like it because I support the green party. (mostly because of the lack of a better alternative) Also I like the idea of having multiple party influences on government decision.

However I also like having a choice. If I was a Liberal supporter in that riding, I would pretty sore about this.

Overall I give this a thumbs up. Solely on the idea that more diverse ideas will be presented in government decisions. IMO this is the best way to have things. Instead of one party dictating policy.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

The Green party is *NOT* a one-issue party. People have gotten that through their heads on the other side of the pond but it's having trouble getting through the skulls of Canadians.

Anyhow, this just speaks to need for proportional representation. To get around the limitations of first-past-the-post the parties are depriving the people in two ridings from voting for the party that they really want to vote for.

Even without the Liberal running, the odds of beating McKay in that riding are 1,000,000,000:1.

They are a one-issue party. The rest of their "platform" is an incoherent blend of NDP, Liberal and Conservative policy, varying greatly on whom you ask and who they are trying to win over (if its Calgary, they emphasize their centre right policies, if in Vancouver, their centre left policies, etc.) They are bound solely on one issue, the environment.

Its a party whose sole goal is to raise awareness and not to actually govern or even to have significant presence in parliament. I got that straight from the mouth of the Green Party's Alberta deputy leader. That's why publicity stunts such as this are not surprising and actually part of their M.O.

As for another poster saying the Conservatives don't care about the environment, that's total BS. They don't care about Kyoto. Big difference. Plus, you'd have to be a total moron to think humans are 100% responsible for climate change, and that buying pollution credits from some podunk banana republic is going to save the world. Fact is, bad things are going to happen, a lot of what is happening is due to natural effect (a lot is human too obviously), and money and effort are best served on efficiency, clean energy and mitigation of loss. Not propping up another country. Conservatives are just more pragmatic on the environment, and less reactionary than their leftist cousins.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Interesting move.

On the one hand I like it because I support the green party. (mostly because of the lack of a better alternative) Also I like the idea of having multiple party influences on government decision.

However I also like having a choice. If I was a Liberal supporter in that riding, I would pretty sore about this.

Overall I give this a thumbs up. Solely on the idea that more diverse ideas will be presented in government decisions. IMO this is the best way to have things. Instead of one party dictating policy.

This issue is that May still likely won't win, and as such, you still aren't getting diverse ideas represented in government.

[Rerun]

The Liberals are so desparate to prevent the Conservatives from winning a majority in the next election that they are willing to cut deals with other parties if they think it will help defeat a Conservative candidate.

There is no way they believe that by dropping out of the election in this riding it is going to significantly boost the chances of May winning. What it will do however is improve the NDP candidates chances as I believe a lot of Liberal supporters will now vote NDP if there is no Liberal candidate.... and remember... the NDP candidate only lost by 3000 votes in the last election.

The Liberals know that this is exactly what will happen and the May excuse for dropping out sounds a lot better than "We want to defeat McKay and we know our party can't so we are dropping out of the race inorder to give the NDP a better chance".

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Rerun

The Liberals are so desparate to prevent the Conservatives from winning a majority in the next election that they are willing to cut deals with other parties if they think it will help defeat a Conservative candidate.

There is no way they believe that by dropping out of the election in this riding it is going to significantly boost the chances of May winning. What it will do however is improve the NDP candidates chances as I believe a lot of Liberal supporters will now vote NDP if there is no Liberal candidate.... and remember... the NDP candidate only lost by 3000 votes in the last election.

The Liberals know that this is exactly what will happen and the May excuse for dropping out sounds a lot better than "We want to defeat McKay and we know our party can't so we are dropping out of the race inorder to give the NDP a better chance".

I don't necessarily disagree with this (other than the fact that Dion is a huge environementalist, and this is the high profile candidate from that particular party!).

But is this a bad thing? This is what the PC's and Canadian Alliance party wanted to do a few years ago, and no one seemed to think it was bad.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't necessarily disagree with this (other than the fact that Dion is a huge environementalist, and this is the high profile candidate from that particular party!).

But is this a bad thing? This is what the PC's and Canadian Alliance party wanted to do a few years ago, and no one seemed to think it was bad.

The PCs and the Canadian Alliance are on the same side of the spectrum though. As has been mentioned before, the Green party could hardly be called Liberal.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by FireFly

The PCs and the Canadian Alliance are on the same side of the spectrum though. As has been mentioned before, the Green party could hardly be called Liberal.

Yeah, this is true. But the Liberals were not going to win this riding. So is there really an issue with saying "we'd prefer if the green party won this riding instead of a conservative"? To me the suggestion is that if Mackay wins anyway there is no change. If the Greens or NDP win then they are likely better for the Liberals to deal with.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't necessarily disagree with this (other than the fact that Dion is a huge environementalist, and this is the high profile candidate from that particular party!).

He talks the talk but when he had the chance as Environmental minister it was all talk and no action. All show and no go.

Originally Posted by Slava

But is this a bad thing? This is what the PC's and Canadian Alliance party wanted to do a few years ago, and no one seemed to think it was bad.

There were a lot of similarities to the PC's and the Alliance and there was always talk about some kind of a merger... and guess what happened ... they merged. But there has never been talk of a merger between the NDP and the Liberals and both parties are so completely different from each other.... the only thing they have in common is their hate for the Conservatives.

[ben voyonsdonc]

Originally Posted by Slava

This is what the PC's and Canadian Alliance party wanted to do a few years ago, and no one seemed to think it was bad.

Actually a lot of the supporters of the Green Party are disaffected "Red Tories" who disagreed with the merger of the Alliance and the PCs.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

They are a one-issue party. The rest of their "platform" is an incoherent blend of NDP, Liberal and Conservative policy, varying greatly on whom you ask and who they are trying to win over (if its Calgary, they emphasize their centre right policies, if in Vancouver, their centre left policies, etc.) They are bound solely on one issue, the environment.

Hmm, well I must say I have heard them on the media in Vancouver (pre-May) and in the media in Nova Scotia (with May, just recently) and in both cases they talked about conservative fiscal policies. No left or left of centre to be found.

[Rerun]

'Not running a candidate in MacKay's riding is truly the stupidest thing that a group of people who wrote the book on stupid things have done yet. Dion still thinks he's at the convention brokering deals. He better realize elections are one ballot.' One long-time Liberal, on reports that the Liberal and Green Party leaders had struck a deal that would see the Liberals stay out of Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay's Central Nova riding. In exchange, the Green Party won't field a candidate in Dion's Montreal riding.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...llery01?slot=1

If the Conservatives promise not to run a candidate in Dion's riding do you think they could get the same deal? Wait... thats no good. The Liberals don't have a snowball's chance in hell of upsetting Harper in his riding.

[ben voyonsdonc]

Originally Posted by Rerun

If the Conservatives promise not to run a candidate in Dion's riding do you think they could get the same deal? Wait... thats no good. The Liberals don't have a snowball's chance in hell of upsetting Harper in his riding.

The Conservatives have about the same chance of beating Dion in his riding.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't necessarily disagree with this (other than the fact that Dion is a huge environementalist, and this is the high profile candidate from that particular party!).

But is this a bad thing? This is what the PC's and Canadian Alliance party wanted to do a few years ago, and no one seemed to think it was bad.

It wouldnt be a bad thing if Dion was being honest about his reasons. When he tries to pass this off as being above partisanship when the entire reason for it is partisanship, you are left with the impression that he is simply talking out of both sides of his mouth, like a typical Liberal.

The CA and some PCs were hoping that such an arrangement would help unite the right. I doubt Dion has any interest in a unified front on the left.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

Hmm, well I must say I have heard them on the media in Vancouver (pre-May) and in the media in Nova Scotia (with May, just recently) and in both cases they talked about conservative fiscal policies. No left or left of centre to be found.

No offence but then you clearly aren't listening or reading what their policies are. Not that they have much of any sort of coherent platform, it's really just a mish mash of ideals without any numbers or anything behind it.

The first thing they say for their fiscal responsibility is to shift taxes to place a higher burden on industry with particular attention to industries that pollute and on non-sustainable resources. That is left wing economics and IMO potentially dangerous economics for a country that relies on oil, forestry and mining industries. A renegotiation of NAFTA and other free trade agreements etc. There isn't much that's right wing about the green party in terms of how its wants to collect and use money.

They are almost exclusively a lobbying party for environmental issues.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by ben voyonsdonc

The Conservatives have about the same chance of beating Dion in his riding.

I like Harper's odds a lot more than Dion's. Harper's popularity since the last election has gone up significantly while Dion's has dropped like a fat log in the toilet. Dion could very well have the fight of his life just to retain his seat

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by ernie

No offence but then you clearly aren't listening or reading what their policies are. Not that they have much of any sort of coherent platform, it's really just a mish mash of ideals without any numbers or anything behind it. .

Well I am no green party expert. Just telling you what I heard on the radio in both cases. When she was on here in NS, she was talking about "controlling gov't spending", "keeping our debt in line", etc etc. Could be all buzzword talk for all I know, but she was not spitting out actually anything environmentally related then.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Rerun

I like Harper's odds a lot more than Dion's. Harper's popularity since the last election has gone up significantly while Dion's has dropped like a fat log in the toilet. Dion could very well have the fight of his life just to retain his seat

Well Harper will definitely have better odds as he is running in Calgary/Alberta (at least according to the chart). He is the conservative leader running in a conservative stronghold.

I'm not sure I get that chart....there is a bit of a difference, but it basically shows both harper and dion annihilating their riding.

Anyways, I agree Dion may have a bit of a run,,,,but I think he still wins his seat relatively easily.

[ben voyonsdonc]

I've lived in both Dion's and Harper's ridings...both of them are super, super safe. The Liberals have really struggled recently in Montreal but if Saint-Laurent-Cartierville was to go to any other party than the Libs it would mean that they would lose pretty much every other seat in Quebec.

In theory, it is harder for the Cons to win in Montreal than for the Libs to beat the Cons in Calgary because they have to jump over two parties...the Bloc and the Libs. It is like in sports...even if the spread in points is closer, it is a lot harder to jump over two teams than to beat one team.

[ben voyonsdonc]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

Well Harper will definitely have better odds as he is running in Calgary/Alberta (at least according to the chart). He is the conservative leader running in a conservative stronghold.

Montreal is the bastion of Liberal support and Dion is the Liberal leader...I don't see the difference.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by ben voyonsdonc

Montreal is the bastion of Liberal support and Dion is the Liberal leader...I don't see the difference.

Sorry, I think you are missing that we are agreeing. I think that both will pretty easily win their ridings. Harper might win by a bit more just because its "Stephen Harper running in Alberta". Its impossible that he loses.