Wednesday, September 7, 2011

Green-eyed monster

The Green Party isn't just about the environment - its about green politicians. Larissa Shasko's very public resignation as provincial leader (SP Sept. 7/11) weeks before the election speaks more about the party's organization than issues. It also speaks to her integrity. Changing parties is one thing, but trying to sewer them on the way out the door is another.

Add on to this the sanction of Brenden Cross as a party candidate, the debate about whether to run Green candidates against NDP candidates in some constituencies, would leave me hoping that true Greens would rejoice in seeing her leave. Their gain may be the NDP's loss.

The Greens may never form government in our lifetime, but they offer a role of conscience to others.


  1. I think the decision speaks more to her intelligence.

    If you are going to bail on your party on the eve of an elections because you want to win, shouldn't she be joining the Sask Party ranks?

    It seems like she has jumped from the raft to the sinking ship.

  2. Actually, I applaud her decision as many of us see the wisdom of not splitting these votes up into two parties. The Greens should align themselves with whichever party can best meet their demands and stop splitting the vote up. Currently, the NDP is the party which is most closely associated with environmental concerns so this seems the most natural fit for her.
    Next , let's address the rural/urban split in our national ridings...

  3. "Actually, I applaud her decision as many of us see the wisdom of not splitting these votes up into two parties."

    The Green Party gets maybe 35 votes per riding, I'm not so sure there is much worrying about vote splitting.

    The rural/urban split in national ridings is nowhere near on topic today, but even so, the argument is flawed on so many premises. Unless you want to completely destroy to electoral system (and seat requirements outlined in the Constitution) then the issue is moot.

    If the NDP want to continue crying sour grapes over the past election then bring on the debate. What percent of the vote did the NDP receive last election? What percentage of the seats did they receive? If we want to fix the urban/rural issue in one province we better address the inadequacies in other provinces. So with fixing the urban/rural split are the NDP prepared to hand back a significant piece of those Quebec seats?

  4. Your selective language is full of vapid platitudes but completely devoid of a factual basis to start your argument, anon 10:43.

    If results were proportional and there was no minimum % threshold, the HOC would look as follows:
    Conservatives 122
    NDP - 94
    Liberal - 58
    Bloc - 18
    Green - 12

    Looks to me like your Conservatives would tank under a system that reflected actual votes. No wonder you're so scared.

    Try checking some facts before shooting your mouth off.

  5. Anon 11:13

    Put down the thesaurus. Nobody talks of 'vapid platitudes', and anyone who does is out of touch with common sense and practical reality.

    My point was to illustrate that your precious NDP actually received more seats than proportional voting would have allotted them. So to hear the complaints that they were 'cheated' by the urban/rural split in Saskatchewan is comical. Under any other system the NDP would have fared much worse.

    I mentioned in my post that IF we wanted to redo the system we may as well rip apart the constitutional requirements. If we are going to fix what is perceived as broken, the rescind the seats that are over proportionally given to the maritime provinces as promised in the constitution.

    You can't take a principled approach to redrawing the parliamentary lines without extending it every aspect. With the population changes in Canada, it is arguably more absurd to have 25 seats for the maritimes than to have the urban/rural boundaries drawn in Saskatchewan.

    Finally, please take your head out of your smug ass and find me where I said I was a supporter of the Conservatives? I have never had anything to do with that party, never will have anything to do with them and don't agree with many of their policies. However, in your close minded little world if someone isn't a member of the NDP then they must be the enemy and what better way to denigrate your enemies then to lump them all in as Conservatives.

    Believe it or not, there are people in Canada that are not members of the NDP or the Conservatives. Funny how the NDP preach the most tolerance, yet have the least tolerance for people with opposing political views.

  6. breathe. relax. repeat.

  7. Just because a party is out on the fringe like the Greens and can't get anyone elected, that doesn't necessarily mean that their role is to be the conscience to others. The Greens real reason for existance is to take away the power of individual choice and replace it by government regulation to force citizens to conform to their agenda.

    Remember that Greens are really Watermelons, green on the outside, RED on the inside.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.