A Green MP? Now that should be interesting.

From the Toronto Star:

Greens woo ousted MP Turner
Oct. 19, 2006. 01:00 AM
SUSAN DELACOURT
OTTAWA BUREAU CHIEF

OTTAWA—Could Garth Turner, the ejected Conservative from Halton, be the first Green party MP in the House of Commons?

Greens leader Elizabeth May told the Star she is "absolutely" ready to make the invitation and Turner, interviewed last evening, said he might be interested, after he's talked to his constituents about his abrupt ouster from Tory ranks yesterday.

If Turner does go Green, Prime Minister Stephen Harper might find that a simple act of caucus discipline, as it was billed, could alter the political landscape.

Harper isn't expected to give environmentalists much to praise when he unveils his big green plan announcement today, but he may have handed the Green party an unintentional gift nevertheless. One Green party MP in the Commons is all it takes to put the party into the next election debates and into greater prominence at the daily scrums after question period.

"Obviously, we'd welcome him with our arms wide open," May said last night.

It's not an ideological stretch for Turner, May noted, citing the Halton MP's position as a director on the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, as well as some of Turner's recent Internet postings on the proposed green plan — which he suspects were the real reason behind his ejection from caucus yesterday.

"I'm flattered by the attention. It's a very quick response," Turner said, when asked about May's offer. He said he expected to talk to her soon, maybe as soon as this week.

Turner met May on Tuesday for the first time, but he wrote glowingly of her on the blog that some Tories have found to be hotter than the warming global climate.

He wrote: "I find the woman to be sharp, engaging and surprisingly political, weaving in anti-Conservative messages that seem to go deep beyond the environmental file. She's also a networker, taking full advantage of my delivering her to this sacred spot to buttonhole Liberal environment critic John Godfrey and try to catch the eye of some of the media gods."

Wait till Terry Glavin hears of this. Garth Turner will be attacked for being too left wing, perhaps?

Garth has always existed to the left of his Progressive Conserative leanings .
He is a true PC not a pretend PC that is nothing more thna Reform/Alliance with anew paint job The Horses and hats crowd as Garth calls 'em .
He' would be great in the Green party and a welcome addition(pain in Harpo's ass)at question period .
The Greens would have instant credibility .
Heck they polled 10% in Albeerta in the last election .
Now that is something .

Did you see Chantal Hebert's 16 Oct column in the Star?

Oh please ... a money-market, condo-speculating strategizer is exactly the guy to fill the Green Party shoes left empty by the departing Jim Harris.

And what's in the water these days? Condi & MacKay ... Belinda & Tie Domi ... now Elizabeth May & Garth Turner? Even the Harpoon was seen standing much too close to that environmental woman, what's-her-name-with-the-big-hair.

Best thing about yesterday's news was watching Rahim Jaffer denounce Garth Turner for bad behaviour. Ha. Remember Rahim, who sent a minion to imitate him on an Edmonton radio interview? From "The Great Rahim Jaffer phone-in hoax" by Robert Fulford, 21 March 2001, National Post ...

" ... The 800-odd words in the National Post's main piece yesterday included apologize, disgraced, lying, tearful, devastated, imbroglio, resign, investigating, abhorrent and shocked, more baleful language than you find in most murder coverage ...

"Has the country lost its sense of humour? Do these people --politicians, TV reporters, editorial writers, callers to phone-in shows, etc. -- imagine that Canada is such a laff riot that we can afford to be ungrateful when something genuinely funny happens? Rather than obloquy, the two gentlemen involved deserve praise for wit and originality.

"What Mr. Johnston pulled off, and Mr. Jaffer briefly lied to cover up, was applied satire.

"Because the MP was double-booked (so the story goes), the assistant stepped in like an understudy and took over his role. It must have seemed logical. If Mr. Johnston is like most assistants, he probably thinks he understands the material better than his boss and could expect to do at least as well on the air..."

I agree with BC Mary. Garth Turner was an ass when he was a Mulroney boy and he's still an ass. There were few guys under Mulroney more right-wing rah rah capitalism than that guy.

So even Garth can't get along with the humans-and-dinosaurs-walked-together set. That's pretty funny actually, Joe power-suit Capitalism meets Barney Rubble. But it doesn't mean Joe Capitalism is suddenly shedding tears for bio-diversity. He'd rather invest in waterfront condos.

BC Mary
I actually liked the extremely proprietary air that the CTV 'person' - I believe it was Robert Fife - took in the first story on this subject that I read yesterday - on CTV's website.

It gave the distinct feeling that Mr Fife wasn't exactly far from being what I always used to call an 'inside source' on this subject.

Wasn't it just a few months ago that pee wee and the conmen wouldn't talk to anybody in the press?

Clearly there is a sense of panic setting in at the East Block these days.

And Frank, if the two of them can pull more than 10% of the Alberta vote from Harper in the next election this latest marriage can't be all bad.

I think you're probably right though, they deserve each other. I think I remeber the Brain posting something interesting about Turner last spring but I just can't remember what it was.

LOL

Frank said:

I agree. I guess the chubby chickenhawk is just too moderate as one of the Glavin fans (IAMConfused, Cappy or one of their ilk)pointed out over at the column that explained why the left is responsible for all of the world's problems. By the way, I'm selling memberships in the "left-wing" John Birch Society, if anyone is interested! Gotta go read my KKK literature about Brotherhood and Racial Equality. Catch ya all later, but you might not recognize me under the pointy hood.

Emissions finish line 50 years away
Proposed Clean Air law makes no mention of Kyoto Protocol
Oct. 19, 2006. 01:41 PM
DENNIS BUECKERT
CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA — The Conservatives released the centrepiece of their ``made-in-Canada” environment agenda today — a Clean Air Act that would take almost a half-century to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half.
The Tories boasted that they’re the first government in Canadian history to introduce mandatory regulations to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gases. But critics were not impressed, dismissing it as a “dirty air act” and a “hot air plan.”

The bill, aimed at dispelling the notion that the party is soft on the environment, sets no short-term targets for cutting greenhouse emissions. In the long term, it says the government will seek to cut emissions by 45 to 65 per cent by 2050.

In the interim, the government will set so-called “intensity targets” which would require industry to reduce the amount of energy used per unit of production, without placing a hard cap on emissions.

Regulations for large polluters would begin in 2010 and the government is giving itself until 2020 to set national emissions-cutting targets for the pollutants that cause smog.

The proposed law — which is certain to get a rough ride from opposition parties that represent the majority in the House of Commons — makes no reference to the Kyoto Protocol even though Canada remains a party to the treaty.

The bill was quickly dismissed as window dressing by critics.

“This sounds to me like a dirty air act,” quipped Beatrice Olivastri of Friends of the Earth Canada.

Green party Leader Elizabeth May said: “There is really no news here. Canada stands alone repudiating Kyoto.”

The NDP called it a “hot air plan.”

“Today, with the tabling of the Conservative government’s Clean Air Act, Canadians’ worst fears were confirmed,” the NDP said in a news release.

“The Conservatives’ made-in-Washington green plan means it will be years before any action will be taken to reduce pollution and halt climate change.”

But Environment Minister Rona Ambrose defended the legislation, saying it will give Ottawa “new and stronger powers to do the things we need to do to protect the health of Canadians and our environment.”

“We will be the first federal government to introduce mandatory regulations on all industry sectors across Canada to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gases,” she said.

“We will be the first government to establish national air-quality objectives.”

In the coming year, the government will introduce regulations to reduce emissions from motorcycles, outboard engines, all-terrain vehicles and off-road diesel engines.

Officials were unable to say what proportion of Canada’s emissions come from those sources, or by how much they will be reduced.

The plan is also to harmonize vehicle emissions standards with those of the United States over the next 12 months, while new rules for the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks will be established by 2010.

The Sierra Club slammed the vehicle emissions plan as too little too late.

“The proposed federal regulations presented today by the Harper government line up with the outdated and weak standards of the Bush Administration, not the stringent standards of the state of California,” the group said in a news release.

“No targets means no accountability,” said John Bennett of the Sierra Club. “This announcement is nothing more than a recipe for delay. Adopting the Bush administrations standards will not lower emissions from vehicles.”

On the sensitive issue of targets for large industrial emitters, the government is moving cautiously, with a three-phase consultation process in coming years.

The previous government already held three years of consultations on regulation of large emitters, which account for about half of Canada’s greenhouse pollution.

The Clean Air Act will transfer a number of substances that were previously defined as toxic under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to a new category labelled “air pollutants.”

Critics say this shift is almost certain to result in a constitutional challenge. The wording used in the act had been tested before the Supreme Court, while the new wording has not been tested.

Maybe Garth and Elizabeth can cut their teeth chewing on the above - from the Toronto Star!

Pollution, Global Warming (and of course the Axis of Evil)- The dinosaurs did it with Bill Clinton and Glen Clark's help and GWB and our own chubby chickenhawk will need to be Preznit and PM for artificially extended life in order to clean up the mess!

This'Clean Air Act' was created on the fly by the usual suspects who are incapable of writing bullet-proof legislation .
The enviornment was not even one of the Nazi's priotities in the last election .
It only became one afer Al Gore toured the country with 'An Inconvenient Truth '
Then all hell broke loose in the Nazi's caucus .
Nope this is another sick joke perpetrated by a bunch of clueless comedians .
I must say it is refreshing not to have the usual neo-con drivel to wade through .
Guess all the neo's are licking their wounds after the last round of polls put the Liberal's neck and neck with the all loser party .
ROTFLMAO at Clueless et al .

Yea, G :
I read each and everyone of Chantels well thought out articles .
I love that woman .

So how long would Turner last with the Green Party (if he actually does)?

Funny also to hear that Emerson once again lied and he will soon step down as an MP! F ing liar!

An Honourable MP ???????????? More like dishonourable!

I guess Emerson will join John Reynolds in the 'consultants' office. How many directorships do you suppose he'll end up with?

Ooooo! Landslide Tony Clement(won with a 26,vote margin) says the 'Clean Air Act' is a healthy perscription for Canadian's who can't breathe .
Well that's got me convinced .

Stepping down before they toss his stupid ass on the scrap heap .
Moron !

Read it and laugh .It is all you can do .
http://www.ec.gc.ca/press/2006/061019_n_e.htm

This 'Canada's New Government' title is so pythonesque.

Will the government three or four steps down the line be Canada's new, new, new government - or what?

Whose jackass idea was this? Pathetic - do they think all Canadians are blockheads?

Reminds me of the spam, spam, spam skit!

Quack ! Quack ! Quack !
The sounds emenating from the shrub as he enters into his lame duck phase .

Yea, and Harpo is the Minister of 'Silly Walks' remember that one ?

since we as usual are well of the subject, I'll move it farther away. Some right wing bunch is polling today, Coalition of the family I think it was. They just phoned our place to ask if we were against same sex marriage?

Isn't that one of the deals Harpo wants to revisit. The poll was pretty short. My spouse told the woman we of course support same sex marriages, as the folks have the same right as the rest of us. The woman hung up, so I guess they didn't want to hear anymore of that leftist stuff. We are off someones list for sure. And of course Martin's back bencher bill on the Kelowna Accord got through second reading. Steve boy is not having a good week. a conservative like Garth Turner is just one of his problems. Peter McKay is now pleading for other countries to "Help out Canada in Afghanistan as well. My gosh I heard a few days ago how we had the Taliban down to a bout three guys and a half ton truck. what a bunch of liars.

DPL
Sounds like a 'push' poll to me. They qualify their respondents first by asking that kind of leading question.

No reputable polling firm would behave the way you've described.

I'll check around and see if I can find out who's doing that kind of work - you're in Victoria aren't you?

3 guys and a half-ton truck - I like that image. With a little luck that's about measure of support pee wee and the conmen are going to have in Quebec in another few weeks.

Nah, Quebec support will be two guys in a Peugot .

Gavin, maybe you can just put the links into your posts. Copy and pasting is really not what a forum is for. How do you actually manage to stay on here all day anyway?

Who the hell is Gavin, wm?

Hi GWest. Yes we live in the little town of Victoria, and yes I figure it was a push poll as Steve is checking out the names he doesn't know. Mind you as he thunders down in the polls it should not take long to get a list of folks outside Alberta that don't think he is from mars. I loved Duceppes comments today about the new environment legislation that will die as the election comes about. Is everyone on the voters list? I see Peter is in hot water for making comments about his ex girl friend calling her a dog. My God I'm no conservative but the woman has, money, and looks better that Peter in a suit. sexist remarks don't carry well in a country where woman hold a bigger percentage of voters than men. The cons are starting to implode one may think, but can still do damage before being turfed. To belt out Turner was really stupid. The guy has been far right since I would figure , at birth.It's obvious they can't even manage their own caucus let alone a country

Dief brought us Nuclear weapons and tons of US army into the country. Joe and his team couldn't count, and Lying Brian, well what can we say about him. I still can't get over them having a vote on the kelowna Accord. The first nations web sites see it as a victory and Harper was trying to get their votes. Dream on steve

G West:

Got a link for us less fortunate individuals.....?

I'll see if I can find it.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1161079748179&call_pageid=970599109774&col=Columnist969907622983

That should get you there RickW. It's actually the 18th's column that I was thinking of - if you want to read the 16th while you're there just go to home, then columnists and look for Chantal Hebert - click on her name for an archive of several months' columns.

DPL
Absolutely. I've sent out a query to see what's up with the mystery questioner. Of course I may end up with a blank too. It'll be a day or two likely but I'll get back to you when and if I hear.

If there was any doubt about a "hidden agenda" behind the Harper government, there shouldn't be be anymore. It is becoming more clear that this government is doing everything in their power to secure a majority government. Harper wants to ensure that this agenda is not revealed until after a majority government is secured. Garth Turner's suspension is proof that Harper wants to everyone to keep their mouth's shut.

It has never been much of a secret. Harper even said so shortly after he formed his weak government, which is getting weaker by the day.

We are looking at a spring election. Vote carefully. Remember that it was the left that put Hitler into power.

By the way, the lastest polls have the Liberals and Conservatives both at 32. Very, very interesting.

Register to vote.

Vote.

Vote carefully.

Ask youself this:

"Do I want Stephen Harper as Prime Minister>"

Ian encouraged by the tactical moves by the PM. He is already regarded as a credible leader, and by estranging a different kind of guy, that has his own goals, that include advertising on his website, will not hurt Steven Harper. Do you think there is a group of CPC anguished supporters out there in aingst about Garth going away? No there isn't.
The environmental issues go on. There is nothing the CPC could have announced that would please the enviro-frauds. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing.
He could have banned automobiles. He would still be criticised about how we disposed of them in an environmental fashion.
In fact there is no possible way of pleasing these junk scientists. No way in a million years, even if he banned gasoline, or trans fat, or bullying, or discrimination or racism, or gender bias. There is nothing this administration could do to please certain people.
DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, millions, hundred of millions of people died of Malaria, because of you left wing enviro-frauds, and generally misguided liberal road blocks.
Get out of the way.

You must be joking? Do I have to post the evidence or will you retract that now without my having to pull out a reference book?

Keep on crying Clueless your boy is all done .
ROTFLMAO at the second biggest idiot in the nation .
Leaderless and directionless the Liberal's manage a tied score .
Has nothing to do with Turner you twit .

Working Ass . Get a phuquing clue .
The left had nothing to do with Herr Hitler's rise to power in Nazi Germany .
You , really, are a riot .

Wasn't Rona the Robot a piece of work today? If I didn't despise that hollow eyed, soulless creature I would have felt sorry for her. Her head was flipping up and down reading the notes her dear leader gave her, She looked too nervous, bordering on panic. I figure she was under a lot or pressure to get each word exactly as he wrote it. You could tell it was hard for her because she didn't exactly come across as knowing what she was talking about. She couldn't hand over the podium fast enough to Clements. One slip up and her sorry carcass would be on the back bench, where it should have been in the first place. So much for the advancement of women in politics with her and Findlay as examples. Is there a new version of the Stepford Wives coming out soon? Does anyone watch those two during question period. Sat side by side behind the PM nodding their heads at each great and wondrous word he utters. They have got to be prime examples of cool-aid drinkers. Nod their heads in agreement and clap their hands at those pearls of wisdom the fat man thinks Canadians want to hear. What a joke.

What was the big occasion with three, count them, three ministers allowed to speak without their fearless leader on hand. Is he getting the big hint that Canadians are not on the side of anal retentive control freaks. Freak being the operative word here.

WM:

Ain't it amazing though, that every single time the "left" puts a tyrant into power, it's because the absolute corruption that preceeded it, and for which no one else offered a remedy?

It's much like the NDP in Ontario taking over from the absolute mess left by Peterson, and like the NDP on BC taing over from the absolute mess left by Socreds. Then they get "blamed" for the mess their predecessors caused.

Rightistas continue to amaze me at their absolute distortion of what is after all, simple historical fact.

hannibal:
By "left", WM means "intellectuals" and "idealists". Ya know, people who think............

PS....However erroneously. But thinking per se, is a process viewed with much suspeicion by the reactive right........

In fact there is no possible way of pleasing these junk scientists.

Like it or not, iamc, a growing majority of Canadians are on side with those some 90% of scientists who believe climate change is real and a threat. The Cons never had to worry about pleasing scientists (junk, or otherwise), it's the public they had to please.

It doesn't take a "junk" scientist to see this will not please the majority of Canadians, no matter how it's sold. I'm a news junky, I haven't heard a single commentator who believes this plan is credible (I haven't read the National Post, though -- I'm sure they'll love it). But hey, let's not give too much credence to the talking heads... lets wait and see how it polls.

This non-plan is a disaster, and manages to do less over a greater period of time than the Liberals did... and I think you know it.

IAMClueless stated: "In fact there is no possible way of pleasing these junk scientists. No way in a million years, even if he banned gasoline, or trans fat, or bullying, or discrimination or racism, or gender bias. There is nothing this administration could do to please certain people.
DDT, DDT, DDT, DDT, millions, hundred of millions of people died of Malaria, because of you left wing enviro-frauds, and generally misguided liberal road blocks.
Get out of the way."

You must be in Calgary, as I always felt that they were saying (in general of course): Get out of my way while I make money sucking carbon out of the ground!

Wait until the glaciers melt and reduced snowpack and Calgary dries up; the Bow river is reduced to a trickle; cows get parched and die; crops burn and wither. Then watch all the head scratching!

Well that Tears It
Alberta's energy sector has greeted Ottawa's proposed clean air act with muted relief, as industry representatives say they're pleased to have a role in how emissions targets are set.

The plan, unveiled Thursday by federal Environment Minister Rona Ambrose, gives Canadian companies until 2020 to meet as-yet undetermined targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Pierre Alvarez, with the Canadian Association of Petroluem Producers, said the act is the broadest policy as they've seen, but still needs time to develop.

"Being comprehensive … we'll know where all the pieces fit together," he said.

"On the other hand, it's very complicated and it will touch every part of our industry and it's going to take some time to understand the implications."

A spokesperson for one of Alberta's biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, TransAlta Corporation, says clear targets from Ottawa will help the company develop its longterm plan.
Ambrose the trained poodle sucking up to the oil industry.
How did I know ?

Really? Well, they certainly did. The SPD and KPD had more seats than the Nazi Party by a long shot in every election up to 1930. Even in 1933 the other parties could have worked together to stop the Nazis

However, both the SPD and KPD hated each other so much in their views of socialism they refused to co-operate with each other, leading to a rise in popularity for the Nazis and their success in the 1932 and 1933 elections.

Any by the way, the name calling really does not reflect on you very well. I could reply to it but I am above that.

Oh, and by the way, what do the terms "SPD" and "KPD" mean? Your homework assignment,

This is what you posted:

That is now and has always been absolutely untrue.

You're the one who needs to do your homework.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1161294617118&call_pageid=970599109774&col=Columnist969907622983

Chantel Heberts column from today .
A good and enlightening read .

wipe that egg off your face working man, if you won't admit your error I'll have to point it out for you, sigh:

The proportion of the voters who cast ballots for the Nazis in Reichstag Elections from 1924 - 1933 are as follows:
May 1924 - 6.5%; Dec 1924 - 3.0%; 1928 2.6%; 1930 - 18.3%; Jan 1932 - 37.4%; Nov 1932 - 33.1%; Jan 1933 - 43.9%.

When Hindenburg offered the Chancellorship to Hitler and he accepted on Jan 30, 1933 he was the leader of the largest party in the Reichstag and, as such, entitled to head the government - perfectly legally. Between 1928 and 1932 Nazi support grew from 2.6% to 33.1% while the next largest party the Social Democrats, had shrunk from 29.8% to 20.4%. The only other party to grow during that period was the Communist Party, which increased from 10.6% to 16.9%.

One also has to remember that, subsequent to 1933, the Nazis used plebiscites frequently and almost never gained less than 90% approval for their programs and policies.

These are my figures, previously researched and posted earlier on these threads.

As the so-called Liberal's in Germany at that time were identified as being Jewsih or Marxist or both it doesn't hold water that Hitler used the left for his rise to power.
His hatred of the left leaning citizenry was palpable .

They did and there is plenty of evidence they either intimidated voters or stuffed ballot boxes. I remember interviewing an elderly German man in 1990 about the plebicites and he told me that the retuning officer clearly wrote the voter's names and address on the back of the ballots.

In 1933 the Nazis were indeed to largest party in the Reichtag. However, in 1932, The SDP attempted to make a deal with the KDP and the DDP to keep the Nazis out of power. Together, they would have had 236 seats to the Nazi's 230. However, on orders from Moscow and the Comintern, the KPD was under strict orders not to cooperate with the SPD.

Much SPD support was bled off to the Nazis in the 1933 election as voters became disillusioned with constant elections and the economic situation in Germany.

Keep the name calling coming, by the way. It makes you appear so superior.

The plebiscites came after the conservatives and their stooge Hindenberg, handed the Chancellorship to Hitler and you know it.

The people who supported Hindenberg's action were the business elites in Germany and if know anything about history you know that too Working man. The Communists never had a chance of forming government in Germany because the business community was more frightened of an international communist conspiracy than they were of the Fascists - whom they mistakenly thought they could control.

Looking superior to you is effortless! TO suggest that the left 'put' Hitler in power is revisionism of the worst kind. If you had any commitment to accuracy you could have made an accurate post which actually described the real situation on the ground. If any party had a chance to stop the Nazis democratically it was the Catholics and they sat on their hands too – out of fear of ‘communism’.

What name calling are you talking about?

Do you actually have a job? Man, you spend all your time here...

The Nazis also used plebicites in their early years. It was a useful tool because the precident had already been set by previous Weimar governments. So was ruling by decree. The German public was largely used to it by 1933.

I freely admit your superiority, Gavin. I am not worthy. I worship thee...

Who the hell is Gavin? Second time I've asked you.

Jobs? Several. Keeping up with things around here isn't all that troublesome.

The problem when you work for yourself is that you also have to sign your own cheques as well as everyone else's.

Funny thing working man, I think you're not a bad guy and the fact you keep coming back for more is making an impression on me.

If I can just convince you that the rest of your fellow citizens are just folks who'd like a half decent chance at life and happiness too I think we could get somewhere.

DO you know what the shelter allowance in BC for a single adult person on welfare is?

It's $325.00 per month and has been at that level since 1991. There's something to rail about. How 'bout it?

Instead of flailing about trying to blame the mess we're in on Jack Layton, let's get radical and look at what the real problem is.

Working Man : I remain unconvinced by your arguement .
It simple does not have the ring of truth to it .

WM

On another tread I explained to you that if you act like a moron, then chances are that eventually people will refer to you as a moron!
But of course, you did not read that, because you only skim the posts, looking for something to make an issue out of.......even if you do not have a clue about the subject

I would never use language like that. It would reflect on me, not my indended victim.

You are completely correct In fact, your NDP buddies cut single welfare benefits. They had ten years to increase welfare rates and did not. A guaranteed annual imcome is really the way to go.

Working man.
They're not my buddies. I belong to no political party. They (the NDP) should have raised the rates but the current characters are much worse. I could make some quisling’s excuse that the economy was in terrible shape and they couldn’t afford to but that is just an excuse. Even the fastcats fiasco could have turned out differently if the stupid people in Clark’s cabinet had taken the advice of people who know the ferry industry – much like the current ferry management appears to have ignored the advice of their own safety consultant. Stupidity knows no strangers in politics.

Not only has Campbell (and make no mistake, after Geoff Plant left cabinet this is Campbell’s government) they refused to address the problem, they laid down a huge tax reward to their wealthy friends and drove the provincial economy into deficit. Now they have unearned revenues to spare and they are refusing to recognize (the report came down in Victoria earlier this week) that the whole social program sector - including measures for children and families - is falling apart and needs an infusion of some $5 billion annually just to keep the whole thing from tanking altogether. That’s just one area.

However irresponsible the NDP may have been during their 10 years in power, the current BCLiberals have done far far worse when it comes to addressing the real needs of children, families and the poor. The tax structure is a joke, the way they spend money on their friends and pet projects is a disgrace and the lies they tell about how great things are never cease to fall out of their mouths.

I heard the finance minister on the radio the other day 3 times avoid a direct question about why there wasn't enough funds in the budget to adequately fund earthquake remediation for public schools at the same time that the percentage increase in line item expenditures for private schools increased at a higher rate than the increase for public schools spending in her last budget. She apparently doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with that. Well I do.

You post nothing but abuse for Glen Clark when we've had a worse bunch of imposters (these are not liberals) in power now for going on 6 years. Why do you think people, me included, get testy with you?

That is very true. I do not agree however, on your opinion of Glen Clark. He was scumbag of the worst kind, especially in the way that he stabbed Mike Harcourt in the back in order to pin the blame for Bingogate and Nanaimo Commonwealth on him, which he had nothing to do with. Harcourt was a very good and reasonable Premier in my opinion.

You can also rail all you want about the poor and disadvantaged but incomes for working British Columbians are going up and umemployment is going down. You can rail on that all the jobs are "minimum wage" but you know they are now. Besides, any job is better than no job even if it does pay $8.00 per hour. Relative prosperity appeals to voters big time because they are not about to do anything that might tamper with their pay cheques. The terrible fact is most people in BC and Canada for that matter live comfortable, prosperous lives, especially when compared to the vast of people on the earth. Most people also realise that sitting around whining and waiting for the government to do something for you is a complete waste of time. They thus, get off their asses and make something of their lives.

I would like to see a real third alternative in BC. The present Liberal government is not terribly palatible to me but at least they leave business like mine alone. The stream of crap and nonsense I got from the Clark government was a complete waste of my time and organisation talents and reduced seriously the time I had to do what I am supposed to do: make money.

What is more is how pathetically awful the opposition in BC is. Muffy to Poodle could have beat Campbell in the last election but the NDP campaign was so lame they snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Their oppositon has been equally lame. All I ever see Adrian Dix harping about this or that welfare issue. That amounts to preaching to the choir and will not win the NDP the votes it needs. Winning elections is what counts and has been a serious problem for the BC and nation NDP. They might have a look at what their brethern are doing in Manitoba and SK but I don't think they are capable of looking outside the boundries they have drawn for themselves.

Until that happens, we are going to have Liberal governments in BC. I can't see anything short of a massive and unexpected economic downturn keep Gordon Campbell out of office in 2009. I think that is very likely in the next few years.

Forgot that one. It is because I do not agree with you. I do not recite off the shelf dogma. I have ideas and opinions that are my own and not the Party Line.

That does not fit well with socialism.

I think about the big shake that isn't being prepared for everytime I hear about another few hundred million being allocated to the preparations for the big rich people party coming up in Whistler in 2010 for two whole weeks. Oh well, kids can be replaced especially if the gubmint can stop them damn abortionists from killing all that potential cannon fodder and working poor --- speaking of which Working Man sans working brain:

I won't argue with you if you mean that incomes are going up, but not as fast as living costs (remember BC and Vancouver in particular lead the nation in working poor). As far as the unemployment going down I assume you mean the number of people who actually qualify for unemployment when they could use it, or the ratio of benefits to premiums paid in by working people which is going against the unemployed and contributing to the surplus that the chubby chickenhawk chooses to use to reward his financier friends.

I imagine you meant something else, if you have any idea what you meant at all!

I heard a woman who is working at a call center somewhere in the East Kootenay on the radio a couple days ago. Working full time and accepting all the overtime she can snag, she only goes 100+ dollars into the hole each month. So the longer she works the deeper in debt. Let's drag out Tennessee Ernie Ford for a rousing rendition of 16 Tons (and what you get?)

If the Repugnants win (I mean claim to) the election on Nov. 7, their first order of business better be to sever their buddy buddy relationship with the NRA and collect all the guns, that is if they aren't already pointing at them and firing off rounds. What'll they do, call the National Guard, hell maybe they better call the Vancouver Fire Department, they'll get there faster.

They had an early snow in Buffalo, I think some people are still without power and it's been over a week. The Preznit of Iran ain't scared of em, Kim Jong Il ain't scared of em, they've damn near shot their wad, and really wasted their powder (though they have fattened their wallets, oh yes!)

Pretty soon American parents will be telling their kids, you too could be Preznit of the United States, if only you are dumb enough and venal enough (and any good parent would hope not!)

So, tell me how you are going to win the next election?

It would be nice to read an article, followed by some intelligent posts - however Gavin West constantly spews his garbage.

So Gavin, you are also an expert on German history. You have an opinion for everything.

My opinion on Garth Turner is - so what? Oil and energy is paramount to our economy. I think the Tories' measure is realistic and responsible. It is not overhaul, but it is progress!

Working Man: "Do you actually have a job? Man, you spend all your time here..."

LOL! That is like calling the kettle black. And, you are accusing others of name calling? What difference if he/she has a job or not? Does it make his/her opinion any less valid?

Oh, and btw ... the only people you can blame for the rise of the Nazi Party are those that supported them. The "you didn't do enough to defeat them in an election" argument is lame. With that kind of logic I guess we can blame the NDP for the election of a drinking and driving premier. Shame on them! ROFL!

As to Garth Turner, he was one of the few MPs in the Conservative Party that I actually respected. We need more polticians like him. Harper is becoming everything he promised he wouldn't be. Where are the free votes? Where are the "grassroot" politics? Why all the patronage appointments, secrecy, and control over what his MPs say? Can you say HYPOCRITE!?

Chris H, I know you were probably posing rhetorical questions, but just for fun!

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha etc........see debate over Afghan extension of mission -We're just pretending to be a legislature, I'm gonna do what I wanna do no matter what you say or do. Imagine this guy with an actual majority - doubt it!

That would be Vancouver-Kingsway, ask for David Emerson, though I don't know if he has been seen there for months.

There are people who can't get elected even unopposed, even by people who elect Rona and Doris Day.

Well if the people of Canada knew what the Harp was actually up to, not only would he for sure never get his majority, but would probably be arrested for treason and trigger a resurgence of a call for the death penalty.

At best they say stupid stuff, more generally they spew racist, anti-women, homophobic and things generally insulting to anyone who isn't a pasty chubby chickenhawk middle-aged or older white male (I used male on purpose - as a man deserves respect.)

Oh yeah, I forgot, I can say it.

..............HYPOCRITE...............

Who the hell is Gavin West?

Gavin West is WorkingMan/NonWorkingBrain's Hero, don't you know. Well, I'm just guessing.

I thought you didn't call people names because it reflected badly on you?

I'm usually a decent judge of character; every once in a while I'm wrong. Guess this is just one of those times.

Nice to see Capitalism/Maybelle hasn't written anything to this point that would disabuse me of my assessment of his general level of crapulence.

As to railing, that's your department - as you've so creatively demonstrated above here.

Keep it up! The self-portrait you're painting is not exactly flattering - but don't let me stop you - I can see a crowd is gathering. Usually what happens when someone self destructs.

If Gavin West shows up I'll tell him you called.

Gavin West, no that’s not his name, its Garf, Garf West ,alias Barf West , really though, its Garf. Garf says

The only thing you have correct in that sentence is CHARACTER , which is what you really are, a character !

definitely wasn't wrong about you either Woody! I'm batting about 750 then, which is pretty damn good in any league. I actually thought working man might be.

Neo-cons shedding female voters

The federal Conservative party appears to be losing support among women voters, according to a new poll conducted on behalf of The Canadian Press.

The Decima Research survey suggests Tory support among women began slipping in mid-July. Prior to that, the Tories had been enjoying the most support among women since they were elected to government in January.

Now, the poll suggests, the Liberals have taken the lead in that demographic despite their leaderless status.

The Decima Poll was conducted between October 12 and October 16 based on a sample of 1,038 Canadians, with a margin of error of 3.1 per cent, 19 times out of 20.

It suggests 34 per cent of female voters support the Liberals, 28 per cent support the Tories, and 16 per cent support the NDP.

The decline in support is likely related to the Conservatives' positions on the Middle East and social issues, according to pollster Bruce Anderson.

"Anytime there's speculation about same-sex marriage being put on the agenda, speculation they're not going to have a very progressive environmental policy, the Conservatives are going to pay a bigger price among women -- and among young people and urban voters -- for that kind of situation than they would among any other voter group,'' Anderson said.

The poll did show Tory support slipping among urban voters and those who are between 18 and 34. The Tories have also slipped behind the Liberals in Ontario and Quebec -- provinces where the Conservatives must make ground in order to shed their minority status in the next election.

The poll shows the two parties are in a dead heat nationally -- numbers that mirror those contained in another poll released earlier this week.

Canada-wide, 32 per cent of decided and leaning voters say they would vote Conservative, compared to 30 per cent who would vote Liberal, 15 per cent for the NDP, 11 per cent for the Bloc Quebecois and 10 per cent for the Green Party.

The poll comes at the end of a tough week for the Conservatives. Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay was accused of referring to Belinda Stronach, his former girlfriend, as a 'dog.' And, the national caucus unanimously endorsed an Ontario caucus recommendation to kick Halton MP Garth Turner out of the party -- a move that took many by surprise.

Environment Minister Rona Ambrose also faced scathing criticism this week after the release of the government's Clean Air Act.

hannibal,thanks for sharing this poll. I'm not surprised that the Harpoons are losing support with women, the surprise is that they ever had any to begin with. A woman out of the house, not pregnant and wearing shoes and in possesion of a mind instinctively feels insulted by the Pasty Party.

Not mentioned in the foo-foo-raw over the Gumboots' canine comments is the fact that Belinda originally left him and his "pretend Tories" to a great extent because of the attitude of this party towards women and the issues that the pollster (correctly in my view) considers important to women.

One glaring error Bruce Anderson (and many others) makes is to refer to the Harpoon gang as Tories. I can handle Conservative since they were honest enough to drop the "Progressive" modifier. But to refer to this amalgamation of the religeous right, blue-eyed oil sheiks and the neo-conservative followers of Strauss as Tories, is misleading at best and insulting to all the real Tories who have served Canada in the past.

Why?

It's not like she had anything to do with it, or even understands what it is about. She studied communications (applied spin doctoring) in college, and judging by her ability to convey her master's message, didn't learn much!

rkewen:Amen brother .

As someone mentioned. Rona(Bunny) Ambrose looks suspiciously like a 'Steppford Wife'
A robot doing her master's duty without question or having a mind of her own .
She used to spin for King Ralph at one time.

Well, I scanned through about 1/3 of the rantings above and decided I'd had enough of the silliness. Whatever righties or lefties want to blather about Turner, or May, or any comparison of why Terry Glavin should or shouldn't have an opinion, or what policy is this or that is a bit irrelevant in the context of the possible "defection"-cum-conversion.

Why? Because a sitting Green MP would seriously impact the upcoming federal election campaign. And the presence of a Green MP might also encourage other defections, so that it's not a one-member caucus. Because a more-than-one-member caucus would behoove the organizers of the leaders' debates to have to include the Greens whether they like it or not. In fact, I'm not sure about this, but House rules concerning the debate might already require the inclusion of a party who has a certain percentage plus that one sitting member that Turner would become.

Even without inclusion in the leaders' debate, the mere fact of there being a Green MP will boost that party's fortunes at the polls, as well as in media coverage. And if Turner turns out to an effective in-Commons critic of Tory environmental policy, which he might just very well be now that what little muzzle was on him has been removed.......

Rules state that to debate the party must have one sitting member .

In ousting Garth Turner, the HarpoCons hurt themselves, shot themselves in the foot as they say. Shooting oneself in the foot is even more serious for a group of people who generally have their foot in their mouth. Mind you the added head injuries might not damage anything that is put to much use. Garth Turner on the loose, as he always was anyway, standing for his constituents first as all MPs should anyway, and maybe even becoming a sitting Green is much more of a problem for the HarpoCons than he was as a backbencher with a blog and a CPC after his name.

Let's face it, there really aren't any secrets Turner could learn by sitting in caucus that he can't figure out from where he is now. The only secrets Harper has aren't shared with caucus, those are held close to the vest between Stephen and his American handlers, and maybe that quisling Emerson and a couple of his ilk. I imagine half of the Conservative members would leave the caucus if they weren't too busy worrying about gay people getting married to pay what little attention they have the wherewithal to afford to the Harpoon's actual neo-con agenda.

So Gavin, you are also an expert on German history. You have an opinion for everything.

My opinion on Garth Turner is - so what? Oil and energy is paramount to our economy. I think the Tories' measure is realistic and responsible. It is not overhaul, but it is progress!

Geez ,I love when ya get into the Scotch early Maybelbc/Capitalism.

It makes your postings really interesting.LIKE...who is Gavin West ? is he that guy on the other thread yakkin about DISSENT???

And ,do you really think these NEOCONS are ???progress???

Well off to the cottage to visit the great outdoors.Hope that NEW CLEAN AIR ACT doesn't hinder the progress of BIG BUSINESS.

BEING FACETIOUS FOLKS !

Well, then...if I were Elizabeth May I'd be camped out on Turner's doorstep - as well as making phone calls all across the party to garner support for his conversion (it wouldn't help if half the party denounced him, which they're quite capable of doing).

Turner is the thin edge of the Green wedge that has to break Parliament's current spectrum; one seat leading to participation in the leaders' debate could easily beget four or five, or even ten new Green MPs. And also establish the conservative, mainstream potential of the party - in terms of both candidates and voters - that the early formation of the Green Party aligned itself against and drove out, even though they were just as small-g green as anyone else in the party (just dressed different, and from politically-unacceptable social classes and professional lives).

One of the most impressive things I saw Turner say during all this was his condemnation of the usual role of the MP as yes-man for the cabinet/leader/party, isntead of doing the correct job, which is to represent constituents.

What's further interesting about this is that constituent-accountability used to be an axiom for the early Reform-ites, alongside Senate Reform and other political-reform agendas that have now been dropped, and apparently sealed shut (given Harper's lockdown on anyone saying anything without his say-so, and him being the sole frontman for the caucus). But democratic reform, if it has an advocate in the current electoral offings at all, is natural Green Party turf; whether it's proportional rep/STV on the one hand or member-accountability on the other, it seems to be the only party with concrete goals for democratic reform. The other three parties are only giving all that lip service, promising to study it and defer further consultation/referenda, instead of just implementing reform.

Turner represents the combination of an independent conservative, already an advocate of democratic reform and environmental and socially progressive agendas, with a party determined to offer a new kind of MP to voters, implicitly more representative than serving as apologists/slaves to the party line as is even the case with NDPers.

Turner won't be an orthodox Green if he doesn't convert. But what, I have to ask, is an orthodox Green? The party's platform of diversity indicates there can be no such thing.

I'm neiter right nor left about all this; I just want to see democratic reform. And I think Turner could serve the long-term interests of the country by joining the Greens, and giving them a doorway into the closed shop of Canadian democracy they might otherwise have to wait another ten years for (before proportional rep or another electoral reform brings them into the House by their own steam). And the caucus that might result could easily be its own rainbow, with "blue" greens alongside "red" ones, and some pure mavericks mixed in. Nothing monolithic about the Green Party caucus; or let's not hope so anyway.

...because it would completely defeat the point of electing them in the first place (other than as an endorsement of environmental policies, i.e. as the small-g green protest vote)

Gavin - what is your judgment on me?

I am a pretty good judge of character too - i think you and Coyote are out of touch with reality. Sometimes I wonder if you are a bored college kid with too much time on your hands. Only the young can muster up some of the conspiracies you do.

That being said, you are pretty funny and clever sometimes.

What does any of this have to do with Garth Turner anyway. That is the thing about you - you don't even read these articles. You merely scan the posts and take shots at people!

Who the hell is Gavin West?

AS for Garth Turner: I think I can recall, back in the very earliest salad days of this parliament, that he was one of the only members of the Harper Government who had the jam to actually talk to the press and express a somewhat independent viewpoint.

Surely, you can't all have forgotten.

I'm with Skookum1 - I hope he (Turner) becomes the first 'Green' member of parliament and that he brings a new and independent perspective to that benighted place as early and as often as he (and through him Elizabeth May) can. The Greens may not be Fabian socialists, but they are a damn site better news for this country than pee wee and the conmen – I’m sorely sick of the song they’re playing.

It can only be good for democracy. Turning this little country back into a 2-party compact is the last thing we need.

Bring it on and I hope it happens soon.

Harald Kann,
I haven't heard such succinct wisdom around here since the sad passing of Jim Beam.

Sometimes it's better to just say it. Good for the soul and it relieves the hypertension.

Hope you're completely recovered.

Hey Gavin, (I know who you are, I can read and type - some people don't get past the first letter of words - that might have something to do with their lack of comprehension).

I'm surprised you're not out partying, being a college kid and all!

Pee Wee and the Conmen New Puke Band on the Hill - Soon to be Punked!

Yea, and the Greens would bleed off neo-con votes en masse .

Gavin ? Hey,Gavin are 'ya out there .
Just nod if you can hear me .

Oh I know you guys can type and read. I may not be out dancing to Doc and the Doo-wops, or pee wee and the conmen either for that matter.

I'm nodding like a bobble head right now and ROFLMAO too.

Cheers.

Too much G. Or should i say Gavin ?
That is too funny .

sorry to bring this back to the tread!

Had Garth Truner resigned from the party, then I could see people get excited!
Being turfed out for violating confidence is not exactly credentials anyone should approve of.
Has anyone considered the possibility that no other party would have him?
His job to the constituent was to speak up where it counts, inside the party!
Anyone can bitch on a blog (this place is evidence of that)

Besides I don't give a rats ass who Gavin West is!

Agreed alive. But, diversity of viewpoint in the federal parliament of a country like Canada is probably more important than 'cabinet solidarity'. I can’t see anything bad about a single green in the house – even if his name is Turner. In addition, I have questions about Elizabeth May’s background too. Still, a good segment of Canadian opinion is turning green these days and I’d like to know more about what she has to say as well. If Turner can help facilitate that – so much the better, eh?

I actually much prefer the Swedish system where everything - even most cabinet documents - is an open book.

It doesn't seem to have ruined them or forced IKEA or Electrolux out of business either.

I suspect the reason MP Turner got turfed has a lot more to do with the general feeling of dyspepsia that's going through the caucus rather than anything he either said or didn't say - or write!

Let's wait and see, he may well resign and become a Green.

The bums that currently occupy the House of Common are useless. That would include Garth. But if he is willing to accept directions from the Greens, then why not?

He obviously was not willing to accept directions from Harpo.
Seems to me that he has his own agenda, but the voters will decide his fate!
After all he is quoted to insist that anyone shifting allegiance must face a by-election.
He and Emerson make a good pair come next election.

Don't worry about this. Plant trees in your backyard. Encourage your neighbors to plant trees.

Heck, try and take transit once every two weeks.

Maybe walk to the store.

Think green, the rest will come naturally.

Moat said: "Don't worry about this. Plant trees in your backyard. Encourage your neighbors to plant trees.

Heck, try and take transit once every two weeks.

Maybe walk to the store.

Think green, the rest will come naturally"

I think too many people are preoccupied with green ($), that is the problem!

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but Capitalism, IAMC/Maybelle, and Woody learning is a prerequisite to providing your opinion, if you would like to sway the opinions of those reading it.

You perpetual white noise on this site is annoying at best. While I believe everyone who wants to be here is entitled to be, I see each of you espousing your clearly confused viewpoints amongst the ridicule of your superiors like G West.

Please either make informed arguments and provide some insight into the debate or find a less masochistic hobby.

With sincere pity,
Modern Serf

Now the real topic:

I think Garth always has an eye on doing the right thing. Whether that is in the context of his conscience or public perception I will leave to people that know him personally.

But if I understand the process correctly, he is no longer a member of the Conservatives, and I don't think that joining either the Libs or NDP would be palatable for him, nor perceived as the right thing.

I think that if he was willing to take the risk of bringing Elizabeth in for the MPTV interview, it seems like a fore drawn conclusion that he will join the Greens as it seems a far better choice than sitting as an independent.

The media are always selective with their scant man/woman-on-the-street interviews, but those of his constituents the networks talked to were whole-heartedly behind him, Chuck Cadman-style. They like it he's his own man, and it's a sentiment most people would like to have about their MPs; it's very saleable, that integrity stuff, if it's packaged right...and the timing's right (as now).

I think similar sentiments to those of is constituents might affect voters elsewhere if he does make the Green Party transition. The Tories are relying on the environmental vote splintering between the Liberals, NDP and Greens; what they haven't counted on is the "green tories" who might follow guys like Turner and leave the increasingly rightist, Bush-ite "New Tories", at the hustings at least and maybe even in the House, joining Turner.

It's also a reminder to orthodox Greenies that there is a strong environmental element in Tory ranks, among both voters and party/caucus members, and that they should be welcomed, and not treated with hostility and suspicion as non-granolas have been treated with in the past (and I'm not talking about Jim Harris, although he's another example). Saving the earth doesn't have a political stripe, and if people with knowledge of financial policy and market tactics and professional talent and (gasp) funds want to join, vote or run for the party, their conservatism and/or wealth shouldn't exclude them from consideration as valuable contributions to the party, as well as contributors and possible candidates. I'm not saying there's going to be mass conversion of Tories, or a mass influx of disgruntled Tories, only that Harper shouldn't assume that the environmental shortcomings of his government won't lose him any votes he hasn't already lost to the other parties. Turner's potency as an independent and the possibilities it raises were he to turn Green, suggest that Harper's estimation of environmental sentiment within his own party might turn out be grossly underestimated.

Hmmm. I wonder what John Fraser and Tom Siddon are doing in the next election...

Skookum1:
Interesting analysis by Chantal Hebert the other day in the Star. I'll post it in the other place.

"Saving the earth doesn't have a political stripe."

Agree completely. I wish more "Conservatives" practiced conservation!

I wish more greenies would stop treating "mainstream" people as the enemy. And that they grew up enough to realize that they might not be the only people with answers to the mounting problems of the world; in fact, that they have to realize that they're only part of the solution, and the people they've by disqualification labelled part of the problem are in fact the other side of the solution. But you have to talk to them, not yell at them and call them names.

And I also wish a lot of greenies would wake right up and realize that a lot of "green policies" are superfluous to survival of the species, more ideological conceit than anything else, and often contradictory to the environmental cause (e.g. "diversity" in the Green Party platform). Recycling's a nice notion, as are organic fabrics and vegetarianism and all those other green-cliches; but they mean piss-all in face of rising oceans, stronger storms, burgeoning populations, and all that other post-Malthusian stuff. Not even Greens are prepared for the scale of changes currently underway; most can't even comprehend the whole problem (not without going crazy, like Goethe's Faust confronting the Weltgeist), and still cling to fairly banal think-locally kinds of measures, and the occasional banal and simplified response to global-scale issues.

What I'm getting at is there's a lot of ideological baggage that Green-ism picked up on the way to becoming a political force: consensus decision-making, eco-feminist analysis, vegetarian/PETA-type "grandmother" issues, anti-leadership politics, anti-electoral politics. All of it piffle in the bigger picture, all very nice and noble and self-righteous and all, but will a bunch of fur-free post-male eco-feminist consensus committees keep the seas from covering the Netherlands and Bangladesh? Nope - you need engineers for that, and bankers.

I remember at the founding convention/conference of the federal greens in fall 1983 where one earnest Ontario Green (who shall remain nameless, except to say he was equipped with de rigeur chest-length beard and matching sandals) holding forth that he didn't want to give up on his principles, such that he'd still be "holding them to my chest even as the thermonuclear wind eats the flesh off [his] bones".

Well, I'll tell you what. If your principles didn't help you stop that thermonuclear wind, then they weren't very practical, were they?

The world is about to enter an era where the pragmatism of survival is going to redefine what "humane" and "principles" and "moral" mean. Preaching eco-feminism when you have to get people to understand carbon sinks is vanity, and pretentious. Vanity of vanities, saieth the preacher - the most high-minded people are often sunk by the weight of their own high-mindedness, and generally get ignored by simpler folks anyway. Keeping world-change to the direction of an ideological clique based on various gender, ethnic and class securities is NOT a productive path.

"gender, ethnic and class insecurities" is what I meant, of course.

And speaking of ideologies, what I'm waiting for (in the sense of waiting for the other shoe to drop) is eco-Islam; a similar message within that faith such as has circulated within sectors of Christianity/Christendom - that saving the Earth is god's mission for mankind. Wahabbi Islam doesn't care - it's all about Paradise; what will be needed are articulate imams who persusade sharia-based and other traditional regimes that environmental degradation is contrary to the Koran and God's Will.....that martyrdom isn't a sure ticket to Paradise if you've gone and poisoned the local river and turned a desert into forest.

Think you mean 'forest into a desert' Skookum1 - otherwise a OK.

I'll be happier though when a few more of those necessary enineers and bankers get on board the green train - for whatever reason.

That's why I'm kinda hoping that Elizabeth May and Garth Turner do start making some kind of music together. They may have quite a lot to teach each other. And there may still be a few of those old 'progressive' conservatives around somewhere or other who might 'get' the message too.

Some very good writing brother. I posted another Niall Ferguson column in the other place; you might like to have a look at it too.

now I have to critique my own posts - this is not my computer but there's no excuse for typing 'enineers' when I meant 'engineers'.

Mea culpa.

Yes, forest into desert, of course - a speed-typing brain fart where the syntax got mangled between the brain and the "page".

And wortwhile mentioning that it's not incidental that much of the already-blasted-by-humans earth is in the dar-ul-Islam. This isn't blaming Islam, as what happened to Spain's forests took place after the Catholics took over, and most of the desertification-by-grazing disasters have been accepted as the norm for most of recorded history - the Sahara and Sahel and Maghrib, the Empty Quarter, the Volga-Central Asian and Persian Deserts, the Taklamakan, the Rajasthan, even much of the American Southwest: all are the result of human activity.

Likewise the deforestation of Europe; in the 18th Century it was still possible for a "squirrel to travel from Madrid to Moscow, tree to tree", likewise Britain from London to Edinburgh and the vastness of the American Midwest east of the Mississippi and lower Ontario and Quebec; all farmland now, or human-transformed forest. We all know what's happened here, and how quickly, and how even more quickly in the Amazon and Borneo and what's left of the Indian and African jungles....

what I'm getting at is the forces of climate change currently underway have been afoot for some time, and aren't solely related to the carbon index of the atmosphere or the position of the Atlantic Salt Conveyor or fluctuations in solar radiation or atmospheric filtering/albedo. We've done a lot already, as a natural force in our own right, starting with our rapid growth in the last 6000 years.

Remember how short that is in geological/biological time! - everyone's been assuming it's just what we've been doing in the last 200 years or less that's changing the climate and killings the oceans. Well, friends, that's just silly. We've been at it for a long time, and to this day primitive technologies like grazing and dung-burning and firewood-burning are major portions of the human carbon/eco-change load.

When you see the scope of what I'm talking about, you might as well go pour a drink. Not to give up. Just to realize that it's bigger than Hollywood can even make it, and most scientists even haven't fully comprehended yet.

My excuse for typing "wortwhile" and other missing-h words is my 'h' key is sticking.

Excellent summing up Skookum.

I see Garth's decided, to borrow a phrase from Kermit the Frog:

'It's not easy....being Green.'

And decided not to!

Well, before I finally go get my morning coffee (it's 12:42 and raining...) I'll put my final postscript on the Garth Turner-Goes-Green what-if. Taking my cue from Alcibiades' citation from Kermit the Wondrous:

It sure as hell ain't easy being Green, which sums up my experience with the early start-up year of the party, and I'm not alone. Whatever Turner's own reasons for declining were I'd bet the party's core ideology - and the word here should be ideologies, given the combination of lefto-social policies/attitudes with hard-core ecological needs/issues; it's the latter that matter in the long run, when it's the planet at stake, and the species.

What about concern for the human condition? Look, we're all in for a rough ride, and what I see in a lot of the "lollipop" policies on all sides of the political spectrum are wishes and dreams and the earthly paradise and all that; peace and love and brotherhood and all that other stuff that doesn't really have piss-all to do with how to stop the oceans from rising or the seas from running out of food (and thereby also running out of the ability to produce an atmosphere that we are capable of breathing...)

The religiosity of the Green cause is a big drawback, as it attracts a lot of fervent followers of often conflicting agendas. This is true of all parties and their causes/ideologies, but in the case of the Greens it's a bit tragic in that, of all those parties who claim to have a vision of the future, they haven't yet reckoned with the fatalist aspect of that future: the scale of the catastrophe upon us means we can only properly function in a damage-control capacity, not in a paradise-building one.

We are at a post-Malthusian phase and there may be no rescue from the disasters that are already underway. We currently have 6-odd billion on this planet, there are people - including utopianists and greenies as well as the various deniers - who seem to think we can reach 12 billion. 20 billion. EATING WHAT?.

So that's my beef with the Green vision: it hasn't faced up to the scale of the real problems, wich are only now just beginning to become apparent, and as a result is no better equipped than any other party or political force to cope with what needs to be done. Ominously many articles in the last few years have begun to allude to the idea that changes may begin to happen faster than they have already; I'm not bragging but I saw this coming years ago because of catastrophe theory and synergistic reactions between different processes underway.

Never forget that WE are a natural force, our population and its demands on water and land, warfare, disease, all of it - we are not separable from nature; even cities and pollution and industry are part of nature, as they are one of our byproduct, just as a termite hive or coral reef. There is no "it" and "us". So as we grew as a collective entity within the planetary organism/mechanism (I'm shying from calling "it" Gaia), we couldn't help but affect its behaviour because we are part of its composition.

I'm not going to make the Big Ugly List; it can only be incomplete, but my faves at the moment are the extirpation of the boreal forest and the effects of that on the world climate machine, in combination with the desertification of much of North America when combined with the disappearance of the Cordilleran glaciers, and the appearance of the "dead spot" in the Pacific off of Oregon. Gloom and doom? Hell, the Greenland-Atlantic Salt Conveyor thing has already resulted in a cooling of Europe - hence the heavy rains and other storms - and a "little ice age" may hit northern Europe hard, giving us - with our dwindled waters and dysfunctional cities - a whole new wave of refugees. And in the paper yesterday there was an item that if all of Greenland (and only Greenland, not Antarctica) melted, we're looking at a 20m rise in the sea level, with accompanying effects on the planet's gravitational field and rotation. Yahoo. Who knew, huh?

Now, none of this is Turner's problem but at the same time it's all of ours. Turner probably took one look at the party's baggage - the radical rabble/rank-and-file - and its ability to eat its own, especially those of its own it thinks are the enemy (Jim Harris, various others in BC Greens), and decided it's safer as an independent. His declining the possibility, though, points to the idea that the Green Party may not be able to be the only environmental party if it can't welcome ex-conservatives, or even interest them even if they're obviously environmental in character. This suggests the need - or the evolution eventually - of a parallel "right-wing"/technocratic eco-party to be a political home to those environmentally-inclined politicians who have tried or would otherwise try through the Liberals or Tories. A Blue Party, maybe?

My interest in seeing him join the Greens was, admittedly, mercenary. I wanted it to break the deadlock on the party debates and the big-party control of Commons seats/elections. I vote Green, and because I think it's fair given their voting strength I think they deserve seats in the Commons; I think their policies remain air-thin and, while more up on environmental complexity and science than most in other parties, they don't really have a handle on Big Policy, and as described above they're not really ready to cope with the ego-shattering nature of the World Crisis or whatever we should call it. It's not just realistic fiscal and foreign policy and the ability to manage a government that's lacking; it's that they haven't even fully comprehended the very imminent dangers of the times that are upon us.

No doubt when the first really obvious signs of sea level change or drying-up of rivers or failures of the ocean fishery hit home on the electorate, they will vote Green in great numbers out of desperation and hope. That's all fine and good, but if all the Greens have to offer is hope, and no way to help the people who have finally flocked to their banner and thrust them into power....it'll be a sad thing, let's put it that way.

Skookum1:

As I was writing somewhere else - to point out your piece here to some other interested parties - very worthwhile thoughts Skookum1.

I notice that Tom Friedman seems to have abandoned his Lexus, jumped off the flat world and climbed onto the green bandwagon.

His Oped in the Times tomorrow is worth a read...not that I recommend him - on general principles his faith in American exceptionalism makes me sick as a rule.

I'm not sure if that's good news - or bad.

In any case, I'll post the evidence - which is behind subscription - in the other place.

You may want to have a read.

Narrowcast key to Nazi's strategy

The Conservatives say they're focusing on "getting results" for a broad range of Canadians, but one pollster says they're "narrowcasting" in their governing style, a strategy of targeting their base in the hope that a solid and mobilized core of supporters will influence swing votes.

"It's a proven model of success for electoral support. The truth of it is that there are sort of 30 per cent that are with the Tories no matter what, and 50 per cent that will never vote for them, and maybe one-in-five of Canadians that are open to them and that aren't solidly with them," Greg Lyle, a pollster with Innovative Research Group in Toronto, said in an interview last week with The Hill Times.

Mr. Lyle said the strategy works in part because undecided voters close to a happy and firm base of support will begin to feel that the government is there to help people, and also turn to support it.

As one example he pointed to the Conservative government's tax credit for tools in the 2006 budget, which targeted the working class.

"You may not be one of the groups that benefits from one of these narrowcast issues, but you see people you identify with benefiting, and so this says that this is a government and a leader that could care about people like you," Mr. Lyle said. "That is narrowcasting. One of the inadvertent benefits of narrowcasting is actually a macro benefit."

Mr. Lyle, who has worked for the Social Credit Party in B.C., the provincial Conservatives including Ontario premier Mike Harris, and the BC Liberals, said narrowcasting has proven to be a successful model for George W. Bush, but it is more difficult to do in Canada because of divisions between Quebec and the West and Canada's typical brokerage politics.

To be sure, Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) has targeted his core Conservative supporters, especially those of the West, with policies that have shown sharp support for Israel and the Afghanistan war, cuts to social programs, lower taxes, strong support for the military, and a pullout of the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.

But questions are arising as to how well the strategy is working for Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) and the Conservatives. Last week, a poll by the Strategic Counsel for The Globe and Mail and CTV found the leaderless Liberals and the Conservatives tied with 32 per cent support and the New Democrats with 17. The poll only surveyed 1,000 Canadians, however, between Oct. 12 and 15, and is considered accurate within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

A similar poll released the same day last week, by Ekos Research Associates for The Toronto Star and La Presse, found the Conservatives with 38.7 per cent support nationally, the Liberals with 28.8 per cent and the New Democrats 17.

Conservatives say they aren't paying any attention to the polls; nor are they governing too much to their base.

Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay (Central Nova, N.S.) said on Wednesday of last week that the new poll showing high Liberal support was not raised in Conservative caucus.