The Green Party: Political Force or Political Phantom?

Of course the Greens should be allowed in the debate. Why are we even discussing this? The NDP and Greens are neck-and-neck in the polls -- is anyone asking if Layton should be included in the debate?

The Greens, due to their performance in the last election, receive $1M in taxpayers' money every year. This amount will probably rise to $2-3M per year after the next election. Don't all Canadians at least deserve to find out in detail what their money is spent on?

Yes, the Green Party of Canada is a growing political force, not just a phantom.

What appealed to me when assessing the various parties in 2004 was the difference in language between the Greens and the rest. Ever since, I have leaned toward the GPC as first choice and been turned off by the party I formerly supported, the NDP.

I am so tired of the rhetoric. A party may have a great set of principles, values and policies, but if it buries these inflammatory adjectives and adverbs - or, worse, buries them in favour of negative messaging -, I lose all stomach for it. Such techniques make the party's sincerity suspect. It's about talking the purported walk.

Most of the material and comment from the Greens has a different tone. When it doesn't, my rhetoric alarm rings and I make my displeasure known.

Should the GPC's leader be included in the debate? Of course.

The Greens definitely have momentum at this point. Their ability to keep moving forward will depend on Elizabeth May. Of particular interest is the very tenuous line she is trying to draw in the abortion debate. She hasn't really been taken to task over it yet, but if her numbers stay where they are I would expect the Liberals and the NDP to attempt to use it as a wedge issue.

Should May be included in the debate is an interesting question. Has a debate ever included a leader whose party has no members in the House of Commons and has never elected a member?

Would the level of support the Greens currently enjoy translate into any seats if an election were held today?

I believe that the trouble the Green Party will face come election time is that they are an issue party. The more popular they become, the more pressure they will be under to take concrete positions on all policy issues and advocate what they would do if they formed the gov't. As an issue party, I expect they may have difficulty in finding consensus on this which will limit their growth.

I have recently parked my vote with the Greens as a safe protest against either the lack of stature of the local candidates or the governance record of the government party. As a political force, I see the Greens and the NDP being closely related meaning they both have a strong social conscience component which we need to hear loudly these days. I do not see the Greens emerging as a future government until long after they have established their credentials in the House. In the coming election, I believe the Greens and the NDP will both vie for the same general voter base thus to their mutual detriment.

A flexible government party with acute hearing, always has the option of stealing the planks from their opponent's platform when a "viable threat" appears. Harper has done this, for example, his AIDS turnaround, his environmental turnaround and his tax cuts promised. Lack of trust, lack of credibility, unpopular thrusts and developing scandal usually sink the government of the day. In this case, why would the electorate not choose the usual "official opposition" party, that is Liberal or Conservative, rather than the Greens? In the future when the two traditional governing parties have bankrupted themselves in trust and creditibility, then there may be a possibility for the entrance of the Greens (or the NDP or ??? depending upon their BROAD appeal to voters).

Yes, Elizabeth May deserves to be heard at the election debate and, yes, the electorate can be very fickle when bestowing their vote. Yes, we should recall that the Conservatives dropped to two seats at the end of the Mulroney era as they expertly managed to put in place all factors for their defeat.

Not only is the real importance of the GP surge open to question because of the 'wild-card' effect cited by Nik, but there seems to be a striking disconnect between the Greens' recent strong impact federally and the party's weak showing at the provincial level in Ontario. Consider what porttion of the parties' percentages of 2003 general election votes was retained in the ten by-elections held since then, as calculated by Alan Hall of Electoral Engineering. He found that the 2003 vote for the LIBs in those ten ridings -- which are a pretty good representation of the province at large -- had been 45% but that the combined by-election vote in those ten ridings had fallen by 8 points to 37%. The PCs slipped by 3 points from 36% to 33% while the NDP surged by 11 points, from 14% to 25%. And the Greens? From 3% in 2003 to 3% in the ten by-elections, with poor showings results in the three February 8 by-elections.

Political force or phantom?
As dramatic as the Greens numbers are, I'm not sure they have staying power required to hold into the next election And as much as they are perceived as "a safe temporary parking space", I'm begining to see thier new found popularity as somewhat of a protest vote. Both of which can and to a degree will disappear in the voting booth.

Having said that, the Greens will become a "Political Force" in the near future, especially to the NDP and marginally to the Liberals. In due time the Liberals will move back decidedly to the center which will create a turf war between the Greens and the NDP, perhaps a merge of these two fringe parties will be more palatable to Mr Layton after the next election if things do not go as he may like. Regardless, the Greens will have a ceiling of support as do the NDP and are destined to be the spoilers on the left.

As to the the election of greens to Parliament, without a doubt they will ultimately have this success in the future and in highly sensitive ridings to the enviornment. But lets face it, without strong indications they mean something more than the perception their party name implies, they may go the way of lets say the " Health Care Party" if one so called existed.

Nik I think we could have a better topic, but Im not interested in any Green Party period, I say 70 to 1 odds of winning a seat! By the way tell Dion, do not bother making a trip to BC, this goof turns me off, not Prime Minister material that is for sure, I wonder what others think.

It seems to me in listening to Elizabeth May on any talk show that she realy is a political rookie. Sofar she has not said anything convincingly to vote for the Green Party. I still believe that the Conservative Govt. will come up with a workable program to deal with the global warming issue which will appeal to Canadians right across this enormous and Great Country.Therefore the Green Party is a vehicle more for Canadians to park their intentions, and remove same when at Election time a decision has to be made.

There is nothing to substantiate a view that the Greens have "improved" towards being a material political party since the last election. The infamous 13% recently was probably an outlier. In brief, without growing up, they will still be at 5-6% after the next election.

Eliz May hasn't had a policy/platform convention since she was elected leader. The only "operative" document is Jim's hastily thrown-together platform for the last elecion, very "feel-good", Probably enough to retain core Green support, but not to grow the base materially. Right now it's a bit like the polls pre-and-during the Liberal leadership convention. There was no leader so anyone could imagine anyone/anything was possible, and their ratings were high.

Once there was a target (Dion), then the warts were visible and ratings returned to "normal" (or worse). The Greens are the same. No one knows where May wants to park the party on the polical spectrum (if I were her, I'd park just right of centre). Not being in parliament, she hasn't had to clearly articulate important current issues --- mercifully for her. In brief, still a cypher, "liked", a parking spot for Liberal disaffected supporters and, if the environment disappears as a major/top of mind issue, her raison d'etre fades quickly.

As to whether they should be given a spot at the TV debating table, that isn't up to me, but the networks. But I wouldn't. I don't see a party yet. Just a lot of fragmentary votes, no convention-like policies and platforms, and no stands on the important issues. To me, no different that other single-issue parties that are excluded ... CHP, Marxist-Leninist, Save the Squirrels, etc. Yes, I know they are running in all ridings. The CHP would get the same result if it did, and yelled "Green!".

Evening Nik, Just my thoughts but I don't know if those numbers can translate to seats but I do believe they can deliver seats to Mr. Harper. This is looking an awful lot like the 1990s when the Reform/Alliance and PC basically killed each other allowing the Liberals to come up the middle. What I found interesting in a poll recently, not sure if it was one of yours, but the CPC is holding on to its votes from last election for the most part and if that hold true then they are starting off at about the 36% mark so if Ms May does any damage it will be to the Libs and NDP. As to her being at the leadership debates, Is sorry, well I would like to hear her, I believe the rules are the rules, if you do not have a seat in the house then no spot in the debate, my reason for this is, when does it stop. If the parties so desire then they can change the rules to something like if your polling 10% across the nation and you do not hold a seat then you can debate, but until they do, No poduim for Ms May.

Hello Nik,
Must get my two cents in here also...
No, the Green Party is still a wildcard, and will remain so until we decide how we want
to really govern this Country, and what are priorities are.
However, should we not have elections now, and only in 2009, as S. Harper had proposed,
then I think that the Greens could get a lot more attention, and monentum, because
by then, and mark my words, we shall all be leary of all of our present parties, expecially
the conservative party. If Elizabeth May is smart, she is going to take advantage of this
respite, and with her numbers growing at the poll steadily, due to growing unpopularity
of the other parties; her party could possibly be in the "House" the next time around,
just like the NDP. I don't see it happening overnight. My concern is also, will she be able
to withstand the political ploys?
Does this make any sense?
Cheers,
blos

The media seems to be giving the Green Party a free ride because of their new leader's high profile. My question is what does the Green Party stand for other than the "environment"? From what I have seen their economic/taxation policies are rather conservative and certainly do not favour middle class or low income families. Then there is Elizabeth May's regressive position on women's right to choose when it comes to abortion. I don't think their policies resonate with the values of the majority of Canadians. I think they will fade back to their usual position of 3 to 5% of the vote after the novelty of their new leader wears off.

To answer the last question first. Yes. Elizabeth May should have evry right to advertize her policies as well as Harper, Dion, Duceppe or Layton. The Greens are a recognized party and have the same rights as other parties. Canadians need to hear what they all have to say before making a decision on whom to vote for. In fact the smaller parties should be give greater opportunities to explain themselves because lack of resources prohibit their being able to promote themselves effectivelly.They need to more easily compete with the bigger parties.

Political force or political phantom? These terms are too strong or extreme. The Greens are growing. I don't see them having a significant impact yet, unfortunately. First they need to get at least one member of parliament. (thank God, they didn't accept Garth Turner into their midst, tho, that was tempting). May needs to get more national exposure. (no, not literally) and they need to get a few more nationally recognizable candidates.
They are more than a phantom because many Canadians are coming to realize how serious the environmentl issues are. Young people who in past elections see no point in voting maybe now will find a cause that they can support. They know that neither the Conservatives nor Liberals are going to do anything useful on that file. The NDP who had a great opportunity in the last two elections were found wanting. I don't know if they were lazy or inept or what. They use the excuse of limited resources but I think thats just a cop out. (BYW I voted for them but I'm very disappointed with their lack of effort.)
IMO, the Greens will become a major party in the future because many mature Canadians and a large percentage of young people realize how serious environmental issues are. We know the other parties only give lip service and by the time they realize where the electrorate are, they will be already planted in the Greens.

The Green Party is only a parking lot. People want to support the environmental movement and think they do that by supporting the Green's. As soon as they get an opportunity to analyse the whole Party position it loses all its magic. I was at a meeting where a GP candidate spoke about proportional representation. The people liked what they heard but when questions were asked about anti-scab legislation, minimum wage and economic policy it became clear that this is just a Conservative Party with a slighty more Green outlook. I think there performances in by-elections indicate that once people know who they are, the numbers fall. The best thing for the other parties is more information about where the Green's stand on issues besides the environment.

I think that the Greens are starting to become a political force, however May hasn't really been tested yet as she's only just starting to get news coverage so it remains to be seen if she can translate these numbers into votes. There is also a possibility that the Green numbers may be soft and potential voters could swing to the Liberals if it looks like there is the possibility of a Harper majority, diminishing their chances of getting a seat.

As to your second question, I do think that the Greens should be included in the debates as there is enough interest being generated at the moment to give the Greens more air time to explain their ideas. It'll also allow voters to determine if they really want to vote for this party or is they were just drifting to it because of the Green name as they had a desire to help the envrionment.

Ms May has a high chance of getting in. The GP not much hope. Ms May knows the in/outs if the media elite in the golden triangle (and use then with great skill). She has used that little tight circle of the golden media for more than 20 years with great effect.
The "GP" is a one issue party will not work in Canada. The east coast NEEDS the seal hunt, the oil sands of Alberta is pumping money into the 'golden triangle', to build the things that they need.to produce the oil.
Go "GP" and Kill Canada. I have lived in 4 of the 5 region as define by the past Liberals, Montreal, Newfoundland, Alberta, B.C., and currently in Winnipeg.
Canadians are well grounded sort of people, we live with bitter winters and sone good summers (not to mention bugs and bears). Ms May is the "GP" best and only hope to get a seat.

Forget the Green for now. FLAHERTY IN LIKE A LION OUT LIKE A LAM. this guy needs to be replaced, to weak a person, Banks are talking tough for the time being, Wait when went Harper replaces this guy and gets someone tougher. Harper should appoint Liza Liza from the NDP, I bet she will shake these Bankers up at the Committee, I cannot wait you watch, it will be a comedy of errors.

Having the Green Party involved in the debates would broaden the spectrum of the debate. Isn’t that good for democracy, what does it take for them to be recognized as player on the political landscape? I have found the Green platform the most palatable of all the major political parties for the last few elections. At the very least they could bring their pragmatic methods to solving problems to the forefront and maybe the governing parties could borrow some of those ideas. I find that today people are much more willing to accept that natural diversity has its own intrinsic value. If you look at the latest poll numbers, Canadians are much more likely to say that the environment is their number one issue than ever before. It’s second only to health-care, which in this country says a lot. But it remains to be seen whether it will be a ballot issue or if people can actually willfully lower their standard of living for the greater good. Especially when most people don't believe that we are overdeveloped.

I believe the Green Party will be around for the long term and that the leader, Elizabeth May, should be included in the federal leaders’ debate. The Bloc Québécois participated in the 1993 pre-election debates, when they had neither official party status nor a seat in the House of Commons.

Canadians are taking an interest in the Green Party because they are searching for a party that says what it means and means what it says. And that’s what they hoped for when they granted the Conservatives a minority government. It didn’t happen.

Nowadays, the Tories are acting like a bunch of super heroes running about boasting, blustering and blathering about how their next priorities will be to protect the environment and the economy, to save us from terrorists and criminals. As an aside, I recently read that Canada’s homicide rate was 3.03 per 100,000 people in 1975, compared to 1.73 per 100,000 in 2003. Looks like “Safe in the Arms of Conservatives” will be the mantra in the next election.

They hope this new chant might distract us from their “Stand-Up-for-Canada” broken promises on: patients’ wait-times guarantee; not to tax income trusts; the made-in-Canada environment policy; and accountability, with the blatant, hypocritical patronage appointments of unelected Tory Michael Fortier to the Senate and Liberal defector David Emerson to Cabinet. Remember the promises to do things differently? What happened to transparency and accountability? What happened to principle, integrity and civility? I guess power dims the memory.

Speaking of principle, integrity and civility, the TV ads attacking Liberal Leader, Stéphane Dion, were unprincipled, dishonest and established a new low in demagogic politics.

Speaking of transparency and accountability, one of many issues I’m still waiting for this “New Government” to deal with is the “EI Cash Cow”. They take in significantly more in premiums than they pay out in benefits to workers. The surplus is now around $50 billion. Why not give a reasonable premium reduction to employers and employees, instead of having this excess disappear into general revenues to be frittered away.

The governing-by-polls Conservatives are on a spending spree like sailors on shore leave buying votes for an election we don’t need and that surveys show the majority of Canadians don’t want. Being bought with your own money is an affront to the electorate’s intelligence. It’s an absolute abuse of power and downright irresponsible. That’s why we need fixed election dates and politicians kept on a short leash of minority governments. As H.L. Mencken (1880-1956), talented journalist and renowned critic of political hypocrisy, stated:

“The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods.”

Did any of you see Mr. Goof on TV to day, butchering the English language again, This guy can not be taken seriously as the need Prime Minister. " I want Liberals to Vote for Liberals can change Canada back to our Policies of Corruption who we can once again fleece the Canadian taypayer for our brothers in Quebec.

Does anyone know who will leading the Pink Party this year?

In my view the Green Party is still a one trick pony (environment) and really is not in any position to seriously challenge the Conservatives and the Liberals. At this point it will be like the ND Party; another left wing protest party. However, I admit there may be pockets where Ms. May and her party will have appeal. Anybody seriously considering voting for the Green Party as a protest vote needs to give their heads a shake. Canadians need to become more seriously engaged in the political process. If you believe in the Green Party and what it stands for then vote for them but if it is merely to protest that is a coward's ways of opting to not be part of the political process. To be taken seriously Ms. May and her party needs to run candidates in all 308 ridings. Only then should she be allowed to join the debates.

I believe that the Greens represent a place for disillusioned Tories to park their votes until an election .
The Greens are receiving support from all other parties .
By embracing the Greens Harper has a way to look good to the proletariat and embellish his green credentials without actually having to do anything.

OTTAWA -- Sources say the Conservative government has eliminated a section of Environment Canada that helped shape the climate-change policies announced recently by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
he Canadian Press has obtained a memo sent to Environment Canada officials this month announcing a new organizational structure for the department -- and that structure no longer includes the Climate Change Policy Directorate.

The directorate consisted of a handful of experts responsible for co-ordinating climate-change efforts among various departments, implementing new policy, and analyzing its potential impact.
One bureaucrat suggests the shift represents an effort to consolidate power in the Prime Minister's Office over an issue that has become increasingly politicized.

Harper visited several provinces in recent days to announce transfers from a $1.5-billion national program to fund climate-change initiatives.

Bureaucrats say the initiatives were largely designed by the office that's now being disbanded.
This says it all about Harper and his so called government(?)

The Greens were a fairly conservative alternative except for their environmental stance and a place for conservatives who couldn't stomach the Alliance/ Reform. Now that the Conservative party has moved more to the centre and (at least temporarily) got green religion I think it will be hard for the Greens to keep their momentum. She has upset her some leftist pro environmental women with her comments on abortion. And I don't think Elizabeth will unseat Peter MacKay.