NDPers complain that Greens are spoilers, Liberals claim that NDP are spoilers, and voters claim that all the big parties are just plain spoiled.

The fundamental diference is that the Greens don't believe in big government, in the way that the NDP or the Libs do. With voter % lying at nearly 50%, none of the major parties are doing a good job of getting voters out.

An important statement from a former Green leader:

Ah, this is so much fun to watch from below the 49th! You guys don't know how lucky you are, to have a thriving multi-party system. Now if your leaders will only listen to the ~60% of you who wanted STV -- or if you could manage to make it comprehensible to the other 40%!

I truly am envious. I've got at least three years before I can really join in the fun.

Green Candidate Michael Mascall at the Campbell River all candidates meeting said: “Campbell River is a centre and we fly people in and out of those camps just to rape and pillage the local resources. They might be out there for weeks logging or something and then come back with a big pay cheque and they spend it all quickly on drugs and alcohol…”
Oh dear.

I am not in her riding but I would give anything to see Penny Priddy heading off to Ottawa for the NDP.

Priddy, who I doubt could reach five feet in height if she stood on her tip toes is exactly the type of scare tactic the Commons needs.

I remember when this tiny woman was NDP labour critic way back in the 1980s when Mike Harcourt led the opposition to the weird government of Bill VanderZalm.

I clearly remember her holding a session in Kamloops with a room full of labour leaders and activists all of whom towered over her, yet the body language in the room left absolutely no one uncertain as to who was running the show.

My mouth waters at the thought of some pompous fool MP from another party mistaking her size and gender as a handicap to exploit.

Dangrice, if voters claim all the big parties are spoiled why can't Green get more than one vote in 20?

I think BC Mary has provided us with at least a hint of what that party's biggest problem is according to former Green leaders.

Jim Harris seems a lot like a man who is more interested in collecting $1.75 for each person he can convince to support him than he does about environmental issues.

Support for more US war plans, support fo the U.S. financed coup in Haiti?

That'll certainly motivate the hippies, won't it?

Whilst I don't have a very positive assessment of the Greens overall, neither then do I especially of the NDP or any of the current parties within the system for that matter, having a likelihood at all of being elected. (And I would vote for any radical or progressive left party even that I thought had a chance of securing simply enough votes to send a message to all the major parties of capitalism and its ruling class. Being actually "elected" is NOT an absolute priority with me, with my longer term self-assessed objectives and priorities.) I do however, find the charge of "spoilers" being directed against the Greens however, to be more than a little self-serving and and spurious-, as in illegitimate.

Certainly when the principle of "strategic voting" serves its interest, as especially provincially, the NDP is all in favour of the concept, otherwise, for example in this federal election, nary a word of it for the Liberals, to whom they are themselves, applying the same principles as the NDP does to the Greens, "spoilers." Certainly the current Blairite model of the NDP is not that significantly different from the Liberals whom, as in England, they would rather more love to supplant, and much mimic in strategy and tactics in any case. (Indeed, they mimic each other as it suits them.)

Of course everyone is entitled to their read of these things, including the Greens and the rest of us less enamoured of the NDP, and for whom many of us find the "spoiler" claims of the NDP to be more than a little playing to our naivete or ingenuousness.

For which reason we need not seriously pay attention to them, I think. And, for my own assessment reasons applied to voting strategically, I will be voting NDP this time.

The Liberals deserve to be punished, no doubt, but of greater immediate concern to me is the need to limit the potential damage that could be done by the more extreme rightist Conservatives. So I would say that after one's own read of the poll numbers and voting history of one's own community, one is probably wiser to vote for any other party having the greatest likelihood of defeating the Conservatives-, regardless of whose ox this gores, or of whose charges of being the dreaded "spoiler".

Screw 'em.

My view.

I don't agree with this, Coyote. Blair is every bit a neo-con convert. I don't think that is true of the NDP even as they are indeed a center party and not really 'left'. I'll agree with that.

BC Mary, thanks for posting that. It is what I have observed. Ruff is incorrect in that there are naive voters who are casting their vote based on the Green's former reputation and their fortuitous name.

Oops, I think I misread your statement. But, not sure. Are you saying the NDP here are like the Blair gov't? Or, our libs are. I'd agree our libs are because I think the minority gov't tempered them.

With regard to the tight race in Skeena Bulkley Valley, it can be argued that the Conservative candidate lost last time (by about 1200 votes) because he wasn't truly conservative. The Christian Heritage Party candidate secured about 1500 votes (spoiler?). There is a party willing to represent social conservative voters because it's obvious the Conservative party has abandoned us.

I wouldn't know Jim Harris if I fell over him in the street but I'm not inclined to vote for him based on what I've read.

However, most of the Greens on the Tyee are decent guys. Brain and dangrice in particular.

I might be the only one but I'd be more inclined to vote Green if the leaders looked like ZZ Top and lived in solar powered houses on the gulf islands and had big anti-war signs.

Utopian versus Dystopian Greens
http://www.greenpartyreview.ca/articles/

first they ignore you...

This is not true. Better to check out the facts before assuming that the word of on person is accurate. The Greens are calling for a complete withdrawl of aid to Haiti, an immediate emergency independent review of Canada's role in the coup and the set-up of some sort of reconcilation process. As far as I know they are the only ones asking for this.

http://www.greenparty.ca/announcement126.html

They also do not support the US's war plans. This is absurb. They are calling for the withdrawl and replacement of US troops in Afghanistan in an attempt to fix the mess that the US is made of it.
http://www.greenparty.ca/mediarelease49.html

The differences, except in the case of the Conservatives, in ny read, are minutia and all relatively minore-, between them all.

I stand with my comment, though to be more correct, except on the issue of Iraq, British Labour and the NDP hew more or less equally to the Blairite view of what until recently was viewed as "labour" politics. Now both are more or less a narrow spectrum of "liberal to social democrat", programmatically and underlying "ideas set"/ ideology. (And I've not much been able to actually distinguish between a "liberal" and a "social democrat", except maybe social democrats are more right wing.)

But then, we are allowed to differ and still otherwise fool around. :-)

I think the ndp would get a lot more of the green votes if they shifted a little to be more environmentally friendly and if they stopped calling green voters "spoilers" .
YOU are the spoilers and until you stop spoiling or at least try to slow down, they will not vote for you. You are like the religous warriers, join us or die. You got to be more tollerant to be successful with courting the green voters.

I don't know Brian, many of us don't think the 2nd choice of most Greens is NDP.

The reverse is also not true. Many NDP'ers would vote Lib as their 2nd choice, not Green.

Doesn't mean we can't agree on many environmental issues.

Yes Dolphin - get all of your Christian Heritage Party supporters out to vote on Monday in Skeena-Bulkley Valley! God speed and let Nathan (NDP) win again!

Dangrice, if voters claim all the big parties are spoiled why can't Green get more than one vote in 20? - Nationally no.

Van City pulls 1-13%, Others got as high as 16%, which is pretty good with an average per candidate expense of under 7K. Also not having rep in a federal debate.

You know, the greens need to learn how to market themselves organize and recruit top candidates. Perhaps with some help, they will win a couple of seats next election.

Green party members are focused on trying to get our message out, we have members in our Kelowna constituency who were Conservatives and NDP. We all agree on working together for local issues. This is the most conservative community but we continue to gain support. You can see this in the candidate forums and the increase in money and members. Ideas are one of our strong points.

People criticize us because we are too Right wing or Left wing or not environmental enough but that is because we base our policies on the idea that they must be good for the economy, good for people and local communities and good for the environment. Only when all three are working together can you have sustainable prosperity. We need to work harder to get our message out. Not Right or Left but both plus the environment.

Is it possible to do politics a different way? Yes, absolutely. Is it easy, no it is not. They say that people go crazy in masses but regain sanity one person at a time. We are not interested in converting anyone but rather to encourage those who are open to our message to get involved.

It has taken us three years and three elections to develop an organization. I was your typical uninvolved Canadian voter until attending the BC Green Party AGM in 2003. Now work with the Okanagan Greens takes about a day a week of my time.

This election should be about our relatonship with the USA. Many people have noted that America is in deep economic trouble. The deep integration that Stephen Harper is promoting is like mooring your boat to the Titanic.

Long posts can be tedious but I believe our future lies North, not South. We need to increase trade with Russia, Norway, the Pan Arctic People and the other northern sisters. We need to buy and build ships to protect, defend and monitor the Arctic. These are not necessarily Green party ideas but they are based on developments that are occuring right now. Believe me these ideas are a hard sell. How are you going to monitor increasing arctic shipping without ice ready ships?

Anyway, we need northern allies who will support our claims in the arctic and work with us in this most important part of our earth. Canada does not need the USA as much as we have in the past. We can use northern development to create more internal domestic demand. The rest of the world is waiting for us to grow up and walk towards other partners. The USA is dependent on us for energy, lumber and trade since for 39 of 50 states, Canada is their biggest customer.

The USA is heading for a steep and long recession, just like what Japan appears to be coming out of. A respected USA real estate report noted the USA would lose 800,000 jobs as the housing sector slows down. GM, Ford and Delphi are bankrupt and have announced 60,000 job layoffs. The USA creates about 5 dollars of debt for 1 dollar of GDP. Does that sound like a customer you want to sell all your product to?

Of the 85% of our exports that go to the USA, most of that is Energy and Autos. The majority of that is one USA company selling to another.Shell Canada shipping OIL down the pipeline for refining by Shell USA.

My goodness, did not mean to ramble on so but you people have been discussing things close to my heart in a fairly interesting way.

God willing this will be the last election for some time. I am more interested in promoting the use of local certified organic food in our Kelowna schools then issuing tax receipts but it appears like we need to do both.

Has anyone else noticed that the Green Party is fielding only 4 candidates I believe? Not a great statement as to how women are involved.

commentor: dangrice.com
posted: 17 Hours Ago

"You know, the greens need to learn how to market themselves organize and recruit top candidates. Perhaps with some help, they will win a couple of seats next election".
Thats pure BS
Here is the stupid problem that faces the greens. Until they get about 30% of the voter market, they get no income (seats). No niche company ever faced such a hurdle and succeeded.
And thats what the greens are catering to, a niche but growing market.
Why not bring the basics of the economy to politics? You know, currently, if the green candidate sells theirselves to 5% of the voters nationally, the other partys are allowed to ignore the intentions of all those voters and divy up the resultant seats between them.
Like in a farmers market, if at the end of the day, one poor farmer has a bad day, and the others get to mug him and steal all his money.
So all the thugs would rise to the top.
Martin, (or Harper) is quite happy to hand the greens less than 2 bux per vote, and in return, they grab all the seats that the greens earned! There is a reason that martin and harper are happy with unfair rules like that.
They are thugs that see nothing wrong with stealing votes.

The top 6 Greens named are star candidates and are well known for their environmental contributions, some world wide:
Scott Leyland
Mike Robinson
David Wright
Jim Stephenson
Richard Mathias
Micheal Mascall
Unsurprisingly, some voters don’t favor Micheals chairman position in the Sierra club (in the BC chapter), or the conflict of interest of this clubs endorsement of the Greens. The Green endorsement of Sierra Club, however, is Canada wide, an important point.

Micheal Mascall has made bonehead remarks and he is running against Cathrine Bell, who I feel would better represent this riding and country at this time.

The rest of these names can hold their own:
Ray Power
Henry Jansen
Angela Reid
Clemens Werhoeven
Daran Bowyer
Robert Hornsey
Ariel Lade
Andrew Lewis

14 out of 36. The rest are deer in headlights. Nevertheless, are we to think that we don't need a Green Party that puts the focus on environmental issues? Are we to think that the NDP is going to do better? We should be waking up to the fact that we have 3 or 4 ridings in this province that are poorly represented by all parties, and every major party has a few "deer in headlights".

Ideologically, the Greens have a better environmental platform than the other parties regardless of how much we want to criticize it... for now. Looking to the future, there is plenty of negativity surrounding Jim Harris as leader. Leaders come and go, so we scrap the Green Party and environmental intitiatives because of one person? HELLO!!!

There are five names listed above in this province alone that could challenge leadership and have a measure of success against Jim Harris. I guess critics don't put timelines on party futures anymore.

BC Mary:
In rebuttal to your post, while I don't entirely disagree with the letter posted, there are some areas of contention.

"such as free post-secondary education for students, a guaranteed annual income to eliminate poverty, a mandated reduced work week to reduce stress and create employment, withdrawal from NATO and remaking the Canadian military into a true peacekeeping force.ª"

There isn't a country in the world that is or could provide free post secondary for all students other than maybe Cuba, and the fact is, a certain portion of students, particularly in trades in some provinces, are fully funded by EI. Guaranteed anual incomes could be legislated, but for everyone, or only for permanently unemployable people. Disabled. We have this in place, just need to bump the numbers.

Mandated work week... that's why the EI system has gone to hours, but where EI currently fails is in entitlement and labor cost sharing revenues.

Withdrawal from NATO isn't a favorite of mine either, and the Greens have recognized peace keeping as Canada's military role. As for the environmental issues being watered down, the environmental all party represented meeting on CPAC, a meeting that has been run many times over in the last month or more, addresses this letters issues thoroughly, and lets be realistic. The only countries that will meet 90% reduction of Greenhouse gas emissions are, well, no one.

And, finally, I've changed my vote. I've got Jim Abott in my backyard, and the closest contention to beat him is Brent Bush NDP. There are no other contenders that could touch him, unfortunately, so I'm voting with fear, fear that Jim Abott will dismantle the CBC if unstopped. This, combined with talking to Brent personally today helped, as he answered some tough questions on his own integrity.

Essentially all parties are spoilers for other parties, aren't they?

I do think in many B.C. ridings, the Liberal/NDP vote will together be larger than the Conservative vote, but the Tory candidate will get in because of the split vote.

Oh and whoever said Penny Priddy was formidable up thread - HUH? I remember a speech I saw her make when she was Minister of Women's Equality (or whatever the department was called at that time). She could not string
a few sentences together into a coherent speech. It was embarassing. BTW, I'm a feminist so I WANTED her to do well, but she really wasn't good on her feet.

rob: Good post.

Brain! You're voting NDP ... hooeeeee!!!

Me too. In Trinity Spadina: Olivia Chow!

Like Lynn, I just won't believe that my Canada will accept anything less than the best.

There's so much I'd like to say, in these hours before the voting begins. The crooked polls. The silencing of the Conservatives both here and Harper's supporters in the U.S.A. The decency of the New Democrats which so seldom gets into the corrupted mainstream media (as you proved, when you talked to the real Brent Bush).

But I also feel like holding my breath. We've seen what Gordon Campbell did. We've seen what Brian Mulroney did. We've seen Preston Manning, Stockwell Day, S.Harper and what they'd like to do. If there is a God, she surely she'll say "Enough, already."

This is such a dangerous moment in Canadian history.

Relax Mary, the world is not about to end.
The Con are not as evil as you make out.
There is no basis for your paranoia.
The first thing they will do is put an ethics bill to the house. We will hope we will survive that goal before proceeding with anything else. And anything else is not a threat to you.

Aw, Little Ronnie, that's so sweet of you.

So it was all just a bad, bad dream about Mulroney, Campbell, Stockwell Day, and Tom Flanagan? Whew. I was really worried there, for a minute or two.

little ronnie, the strongest ethics language available for any government was that of Joe Stalin. You can check it out, but I know you won't. I am surprised that you would think that putting something on paper, like Uncle Joe did, would somehow make everything better.

Michael Oddy's plaintive left-Green bleating about how the Green Party has moved away from the Global Green Charter goes on to make a number of assertions about party policy that others have easily rebutted. But it points out the "negative" comments about Jim Harris and the blue-Greens (so-called here) that the red-Greens (many ex-NDPers either returned to the fold, or indeed for whom the NDP weren't "red" enough) are largely based in leftist paranoias about people who don't think like them. And in the absence of facts, paranoids resort to accusation and unbased allegations, as Mr. Oddy has done.

Myself, I've had a look at the Global Green Charter and wonder when it is that the Canadian Greens adopted it as a "Bible". Written by the hard eco-left in Germany and Europe, where Greenism has a decidedly post-Communist tinge to it, it's not surprising that it's something red-Greens prefer over any other Green vision. But it makes me wonder how it was the Canadian Greens, if they're all that "blue", ever adopted it; unless it was at a time when the red-Greens had control of the party and they passed the GGC as a "motherhood" document. It's a motherhood document, all right, but written in another political environment and including language that would offend many mainstream/centre voters who otherwise would like to vote for the Green Party.

And this is the main problem with the "Green Party isn't leftist enough" rhetoric, and the wheedling, lying stuff coming out of items like Mr. Oddy's, or in the emails that Sylvaine Zimmerman mentions. Such thinking avoids and indeed excludes the idea that Greenism isn't in the political spectrum, that ideally it should be above it, or span it across political stripes. Leftist red-Greens have the idea that others should convert to their ideology and their hard-line policies (which were written to please ideologues, not the public) and are outraged when anyone else espouses Green issues (environmental etc., not "Green issues" as defined by red-Greens (i.e. the GGC). Blue-Greens, so-called, are more to the idea that Green ideas have to be brought to people in the language that they speak themselves, and can be bridged into the corporate sector, which is actually perceived to be potentially educable, instead of the implacable enemy that must be crushed and swept aside, as in the hardcore red-Green view (and in Mr. Oddy's and other tidbits above).

I saw Harris on the TV news tonight, making his last stump speech before tomorrow. He actually some fire in him, unlike the other three party leaders (OK, Harper had some fire, but it smelled like kerosene and truck tires burning), and I know that he looked impressive; the kind of guy that might make a good Prime Minister - or at least an interesting politician, albeit only as a backbencher or perhaps a mayor. That he's got a corporate background should NOT be construed as a reason to challenge his right to lead the Greens; that his motivational speaking background is there is also a reason NOT to dump on him; that he can motivate people, makes a science of it, is what the Green Party needs.

I think he's done an admirable job of fending off the media slags and in particular the ONGOING ATTACK from the NDP and also from the red-Green ranks (many red-Greens don't like the idea of the party being in organized politics at all; what else it could do than play tiddlywinks and trade recycled tofu recipes, I don't know), and that he's so positive about the party's chances and the future of the Green vote is, to me, a recommendation in and of itself.

(cont)

Basically I think that if a lot of the ass-cinched-up Greens could let their knickers down a bit, and give up on the ideological cant, they might find they actually like the guy. Or better yet, discover that people like my Mom (85 this year) or the trucker I had coffee with this morning like him, and want to vote for him.

Sure, you can put in a Green ideologue in the leader's job to please your own political egos if you want; but you'll lose the public, who will consider you to have marched off into the swamp, with no grasp on political reality or delivering to the voter something and someone the voter can understand.

They can and do understand Jim Harris. They can't understand a guy like Michael Oddy.

I'm really happy voting for Ray Power tomorrow (Burnaby-Douglas), and even though the riding is otherwise a three-way split I don't care, as I wouldn't vote for Siksay or Cunningham anyway, i.e. I might not vote at all. So I'm not a wasted vote, and in my opinion there is NO SUCH THING. Except, of course, in the style guides and list of handy catchphrases handed out to NDP spin doctors at the onset of the campaign.

If the NDP were a democratic party - a party that really believed in democracy and the right of people to vote according to their own free choice - and if they're so happy with first-past-the-post voting, then people voting for who they WANT (not for the best choice to block who they don't) they should support; if they don't like the FPTP plurality, then they've had plenty of chances to table legislation to get it changed.

In the meantime, FPTP is a multi-lane racecourse and all the horses in the gates are also in the race. Not just the top two. The NDP should know that; they've been running to "place or show" since the CCF days. Asking another horse to take a dive to help themselves win.....y'know, in professional sports, that's illegal......but of course politics is the dirtiest game going, isn't it? And it turns out the NDP are just as dirty, in terms of political tactics anyway, as anyone else.

I'm not sure how you got here. The NDP asking Greens to support their party using the tired old mantra of not wasting your vote is not exactly what I'd call dirty tactics.

And Layton is the only leader pushing for electoral reform. Doesn't matter if he forms gov't, he wont, he'll push it if he's in a strong minority position too.

Allan says he wants to see Priddy... why?

On community television as part of a debate she admitted that she did not know what NAFTA, NORAD and NATO were! She was soundly booed during the last all-candidate meeting where she once again showed up very late.

Penny Priddy is not ready for federal politics, she doesn't even know what our free trade agreement is all about for Christ's sake!

I don't want another know-nothing career politician in Ottawa. There are far better candidates in Surrey North. The Green Roy Whyte was by far and away the most knowledgeable and the best speaker by a large margin. The independent John Boulin was also very impressive, and comes a close second.

Let me repeat - a candidate that does not know what NORAD and NATO are does not deserve to be in the House of Commons.

Well somedumbguy, you have certainly lived up to your billing.

I have not been to the all candidates forums you claim to have been at, but you know what?
I think everything you stated above about Priddy's inabilities is a crock.

What I am saying is that you are so bitter and twisted that you can't write honestly any more.

I doubt your Green and independant candidates will reap even 10 percent to split between them.

I do hope you live in Priddy's riding. That's right, it's going to be her riding after about 9 pm tomorrow.

Enjoy bozo.

Vote for what you believe in. Vote for our children and grandchildren. The UN Millennium Eco-System Assessment, the most comprehensive study of its kind ever done, tells us that 60% of the earth’s eco-systems are not functioning or are in a state of decline. This is the degradation of our life support systems. The same things that are negatively impacting our health are also having the same impacts on our biosphere.
Everyone in the world depends on nature and ecosystem services to provide the conditions for a decent, healthy, and secure life.
Humans have made unprecedented changes to ecosystems in recent decades to meet growing demands for food, fresh water, fiber, and energy.
These changes have helped to improve the lives of billions, but at the same time they weakened nature’s ability to deliver other key services such as purification of air and water, protection from disasters, and the provision of medicines.
Among the outstanding problems identified by this assessment are the dire state of many of the world’s fish stocks; the intense vulnerability of the 2 billion people living in dry regions to the loss of ecosystem services, including water supply; and the growing threat to ecosystems from climate change and nutrient pollution.
Human activities have taken the planet to the edge of a massive wave of species extinctions, further threatening our own well-being.
The loss of services derived from ecosystems is a significant barrier to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals to reduce poverty, hunger, and disease.
The pressures on ecosystems will increase globally in coming decades unless human attitudes and actions change.
Measures to conserve natural resources are more likely to succeed if local communities are given ownership of them, share the benefits, and are involved in decisions.
Even today’s technology and knowledge can reduce considerably the human impact on ecosystems. They are unlikely to be deployed fully, however, until ecosystem services cease to be perceived as free and limitless, and their full value is taken into account.
Better protection of natural assets will require coordinated efforts across all sections of governments, businesses, and international institutions. The productivity of ecosystems depends on policy choices on investment, trade, subsidy, taxation, and regulation, among others.
The good news is that there are alternatives. The evolution and re-design of industry is not only good for our health but it’s also good for our local economy. This issue is explored in more detail in the sections devoted to commerce and smart growth but it is important to note the interconnected nature of these policy positions. Green ideology is not a narrow, one-issue perspective but a paradigm that encompasses all policy and is based on reverence for life and an understanding of cause and effect.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. That could be tomorrow.

A society grows great when men and women plant seeds to trees in whose shade they shall never sit. A Green vote is a seed that will grow.

M

I think the Green Party, imperfect as it is, still deserves support from sustainability-minded people across the political spectrum. People knock the party because of an incomplete platform, a controlling leader, a shift towards the centre, etc. These criticisms would mean a lot if the Green Party had a chance of forming government. They're inexperienced, and frankly could not run the country.

But that's not the point at this stage in the Party's growth... the point now is to get an MP or two in the House. Let's have some advocates putting environmental issues in the spotlight, from inside Parliament. I could mention the issues, but there's plenty of posts here that have already done that.

The idealogues who are turned off by the party's move away from the Global Green Charter need a little dose of reality. That reality is that the Green party is plagued by an image problem. Many voters see the Green Party as practically interchangaeble with the Marijuana party: all hippies with bleeding hearts.

A leader with business ties lends the Green Party a little badly needed credibility.

The big picture is that the environment needs advocates in the House of Commons. The hardline leftist Greens can stick to their principled stance, but they're doing a disservice to the bottom line of their party's philosophy if this holds MP candidates back from getting votes.

---------------------

And to Sometimes Friendly Giant: nice quote about Jim Harris and Stephen Harper! :

"He [Jim Harris] actually has some fire in him, unlike the other three party leaders (OK, Harper had some fire, but it smelled like kerosene and truck tires burning)"...

The NDP have gotten off easy in this campaign.
Firstly, they called this election that most citizens did not want in search of a seat grab from the weakened Liberals and as a federalist from Quebec, I'd like British Columbian's to consider the danger of increasing the might of the Bloc/PQ as the anti-federal alternative. The NDP have no chance at winning seats there. BAD long-term strategy and this has deepened devides in the country while the right have been able to pull together--especially in Quebec.
Secondly, Ontario will once again be the battle ground. It will be the NDP that will spoil the "progressive" vote and allow the Conservatives to squeek into winning seats. That applies to the prairies and the Atlantic provinces as well.
In BC and Alberta, the Greens are nearing the 10% mark in the polls consistently and these voters are coming from the left AND the right, but mostly would not vote if the Greens were not an option. 34% of Canadians say the Green Party would be their second choice and that is rising.
The NDP don't deserve to be voted for. They are not bringing up anything new to the electoral process with the exception of occassionally mentioning pro-rep and the importance of Kyoto with no plan of impimenting it! Jack Payton didn't even bring up Kyoto or the environment in the debates that Jim Harris should have been allowed to attend and he contests that he and the NDP represent the interests of Canadians on the Environment!?
The Green Party have a platform released before any of the main parties with long-term solutions to a wide-range of issues that do not embrace the short-term band-aid approach as the traditional parties have. Before making any decisions tomorrow, go see the platform for yourselves. Make informed decisions through a clear lens--without influence from the media . Vote for the candidates that are addressing the most important issues of our society and our planet and feel good about that decision.

I would pay attention to Richmond (Dr. Richard Mathias, endorsed by the Georgia Straight) BC South Interior (Scott Leyland) with no Conservative candidate running, and Vancouver Quadra (Ben West who came in 4th in the Civic Mayoral election, btw) should have been added to the list in the original article.
The Greens may not win seats this time, because of the lack of concentration of Green voters in 1 or more ridings and our archaic electoral system, but I'm predicting that there will be over 1 million voters coming out to the polls tomorrow to show their support for their values and beliefs that will build the foundations of a party without any corporate or union backing. Each vote bring $1,78 to the party, remember.

Voting begins amid warning about bogus election e-mail
Last Updated Mon, 23 Jan 2006 07:06:18 EST
CBC News

As Canadians headed to the polls Monday, beginning in Newfoundland, Elections Canada was warning them not to be led astray by a fraudulent e-mail about the election that has been circulating.

Elections Canada said the bogus e-mail bears the agency's logo and the name of Jean-Pierre Kingsley, chief electoral officer, and incorrectly states that people can vote on two days – Monday and Tuesday.

"The only polling day is Monday, Jan. 23," Elections Canada said in a statement posted on its website.

"This message does not come from Elections Canada, and is against the law," the agency added.

The warning was issued as the heads of the major political parties – Liberal Leader Paul Martin, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, New Democrat Leader Jack Layton and Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe – whirled through a packed weekend schedule of events, rallies and appearances.

You're assuming I guess that the Libs are progressive? Most progressives would disagree. trudeau was a long time ago. The Paul Martin Libs since 1993 have not fixed anything, nor have they shown any interest in doing so.

I'm happy the NDP thinks about what is good for them and not what's good for the Liberals. Unfortunately too many Liberals equate what's good for them with what's good for Canada.

The NDP had no choice but to not support the libs when the libs reneged on their agreement not to give those corporate tax cuts. It is the Liberals who are responsible for this election.

I agree RRG, I don't think the NDP was asking for too much at all. The Libs are the ones who chose to reject what the NDP asked for.

I know I sound like a broken record, but the NDP dug their own grave on this one, they dug it deep and they dug it wide. The Green Party will never be the clear alternative until we have proportional representation. Right now we are fighting the last stand against the corporation that wants us to exist as mindless workers, murdering children stupid enough to be born to poor and/or dysfunctional parents.

The NDP and the GReens could have made an alliance anytime, but everyone is too greedy and lusting after power, this includes the unions, not to mention the civil servants. If you guys are so good at government, why can't you work together for the good of the people? Huh?

It's eh, not huh. At least until tonight.

Could it be that it's because the Green party faithful don't even have enough sense when to realize the biggest threat Canada ever had is staring them right in the face? Could it also be that the Green party is now full of Libertarians who are philosophically miles away from the NDP? And, who aren't that uncomfortable with Harper and BWB?

Case closed.

No one likes to bring up the issues around unions and the conflicts inherent to resource extraction and the environment. You environmental politicos are pretty much a useless gutless bunch resolving those polemics.

The election is over now and do you think anyone elected is going to sit down with all the players and work out strategies for the sustainability of our ecosystem? Not on your nanny red rover. The elected representatives will now go to ottawa and play a game called federal politics, this in itself (well, along with dealing back room politics in your own party) will keep them fully occupied. Aside from the moles (who long ago became a cancerous blight), no money will be spent on the infrastructure of the community, that duty will be shirked off to the city.

Quote from Janet 666: "The NDP and the GReens could have made an alliance anytime, but everyone is too greedy and lusting after power, this includes the unions, not to mention the civil servants. If you guys are so good at government, why can't you work together for the good of the people? Huh?"

Were any NDP candidates stepping aside to offer clear races to promising Green candidates??? "I DON'T THINK SO!!". But that's what the NDP were asking Green candidates to do, even though the Green candidates they were wanting out of the way, or may an endorsement from (i.e. "Hey Green voters, guess what, I want you to vote for those guys instead!" - would sure do a lot of party credibility, yup).

And the NDP aren't good at government. Are you kidding? Not that the Socreds or NeoGrits are either, but if the NDP were the green party they claim to be then 1972-75 and 1991-2001 should have seen the end of clearcutting and log exports, public wellness plans, confirmed park boundaries (where now there are only "protected areas" which aren't protected), investment in alternative-fuel transport and energy, revision of urban zoning codes to end suburban sprawl and the dependency on the automotive infrastructure.

If the NDP were the green visionaries they claim to be, 1991-2001 in BC would have been the "unpaving of paradise, and the ripping up of parking lots"; and industries and investors from the eco-economy (alt energy/fuels, alt vehicles/transport, water purification systems, who knows what else) would be the mainstay of the province's economy - not ongoing real estate reinvestment/development/sprawl, sunset-phase resource industries grasping at every stick of wood (even the standing deadwood from the beetlekill), and the Fraser Valley's air wouldn't be choked with Vancouver's smog.

The main point is that, aside from the fact that the NDP's green credentials are mostly ideological and little more than that ecologically (and leftist-tainted ideological, too, and limited by the resource unions), the reality is that the Green membership and the Green vote are not of a common mind with the NDP membership and the NDP vote. And unlike the NDPers, for the most part Greens aren't voting to BLOCK anyone, but to give their support to a cause well worth supporting.

If the NDP want to show political leadership in this parliament, they should get the other two opposition parties on-side on electoral reform and shove it down Harper's throat IN ADVANCE OF THE NEXT ELECTION. This would prevent a Tory majority (which at 38-40$ of the vote in a majority situation, they don't deserve to have, nor does any party with less than 50%).

Another thing they could do, in the spirit of making room in the House for the Green Party, is to designate one of their candidates to cross the floor and declare as a Green in advance of the dissolution of the House. This would ensure the presence of the Green Party leader in the next leader's debate - hopefully still Harris, because I think he's worth another chance after having gotten the party more credibility/exposure in the last two elections than in almost the party's entire history.

Or don't the NDP recognize the democratic will of 5% of Canadian voters - theoretically 15-16 MPs under proportional rep. Just on the principle of the thing, since you think we should be such good buddies, don't you think Jack should sacrifice an NDP seat to get the Greens into the main arena? That's interesting, but absurd, as you know; the NDP only want Green help in order to shore up the NDP, not to help the Greens.....