Did May ask Liberal candidate to bow out?

Would that be a dirty trick?

Or would alleging that request was made by May be a dirty trick?

Just wondering eh!

dirty tricks

When one meets with Lunn most feel they need to go home immediately have a shower. He reminds me of the classic depictions of the "Chicago ward Bosses"
Did someone from the Green Party ask the Liberal to withdraw? almost certainly and I am equally certain a Liberal party supporter has asked May to withdraw, I doubt in either case it was an official party request and what individual campaign workers say or do can not be controlled i.e. it is not (according to Harper) Harper's responsibility that supporters removed people from a rally because they had a picture with another leader on their facebook page.

Harrassment by pollsters in this riding

Yesterday alone, one friend who lives in this riding has received 9 (NINE) polling calls, and 4 specific solicitations to vote for one candidate or another. There were 2 calls for Gary Lunn, one for the Green Party, and one with a message to vote for anyone BUT Gary Lunn.

The pollster automated calls were generally not oriented one way or another..seemed to be asking general questions about issues and previous voting preferences...but all asked about current preferences. Most interesting was the set of questions which came in late yesterday afternoon asking about preferences for a coalition government....would you favour an NDP-led coalition, or an Liberal-led coalition.....which is in itself an interesting question to be asked days before the election.
The resident expects that these calls will intensify over the weekend...so its clear that some folks are concerned about this riding over all....as well as who gets to be government on Monday Night.

flying by the seat of your ...

Surely there is room in parliament for a federal party leader that isn't male, and who is passionate about the environment and not so much about the win? Lizzie May wants the Federal party leaders to play nice as she is blocked from the debates. May is a breath of fresh air.

Just another old style politician

Elizabeth May's elitist mentality, masquerading as concern for the environment, is a threat to democracy. The change of focus of the party under May, as under fellow "Big Green" alumnus Adriane Carr in BC, has been to put the leader on a pedestal at the expense of building a grassroots organization with strong local constituencies; and making the election of the leader, rather than capturing more of the national vote, the focus of party strategy.

During the last election, May's imposition of a "paper candidate" in our constituency deprived Green supporters of a real live human candidate - the official candidate was said to be one "Amber van Drielen", but was never seen nor heard from during the election!

May is more interested in getting herself into a position of influence using the media for free advertising than in growing her party through getting people involved. Her excuse for parachuting into Gulf Islands (that is what the old line parties do!)said it all - she is just one more self serving politician like the rest and does not offer opportunity for change.

The rise in popularity of the NDP suggests the real opportunities for change lie with that party, which has a strong environmentally aware membership and could only benefit from attracting more green oriented community activists - as opposed to the well funded and anti democratic honchos from Big Green who now run the Green Party!

Shell game

A lot of 'former conservatives' seem to be supporting May.
Her self-generated 'poll' is highly suspect, and differs substantially from other polls taken in the area.
SGI will not be electing a Liberal or a New Democrat.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Suggest as offensive

It will be interesting to see if Elizabeth completes her campaign without interference from the now-expected dirty tricks squad.
What will it say if her campaign is allowed to proceed unmolested?
Stay tuned...

Stewart MacKenzie

No one was much interested in the Reform Party - until Deborah Grey got elected.

The Greens deserve at least that much of a chance.

Exactly why

does Elizabeth May "deserve the chance"?

I Hope That Ms May Wins A Seat

I hope she does. Her win would be a double benefit to her riding but to Canadians as well. First she would finally win a seat and second she would replace the Conservative incumbent in her riding. These are two very good things. Hopefully come election day this will be the case. The voters will decide.

Canada Benefits Big Time from Elizabeth Goes to Ottawa!

Having a very intelligent, well spoken woman in parliament who should have been in the debates, English and French is imperative. No question about it; Elizabeth May begins to talk and she cuts through the mundane to reveal excellent analysis, excellent strategies and fresh ideas. She loves our planet and Canada,too and her enthusiasm is infectious. Besides...I trust her integrity. You go girl and Gary Lunn needs to move on to whatever corporate nest is waiting for him.

Get rid of Harper

Harper inherited a surplus from the Liberals and BEFORE the recession he was already in a deficit position. Without the banking regulations put in place by the Liberals, Harper's economic plans to deregulate the banking industry would have bankrupt Canada just like it did in the US under Bush and his Conservatives. Under Harper unemployment is high and staying there, gas and food prices have sky rocked, there are about 250,000 homeless living in the streets, cuts have been made to social programs, the deficit is $55 billion and rising while Harper gives huge tax breaks to wealthy corporations while sticking us with the HST, our reputation on the world stage is in ruins, pensions and the medical system are in jeopardy, the list goes on. If any other party was in power and produced these results all the conservatives in the country would be howling for a replacement government. So let's give them one.

ETHICS ?

I find it contrary of Ms May to raise ANY question of election ethics, particularly when, in many ridings across Canada there are nothing but "paper" candidates. Absentee candidates that are filed, but don't live anywhere near the ridings, don't show up for any meetings, don't personally campaign and in many instances have NEVER been to the riding. Ms. May "appoints" many of the "candidates" so that the TAXPAYER can fund the Green Party to the tune of $2.00 per vote. Should be called the "GREENBACK PARTY". It's a sham and a fraud.

cboo44

Um - absentee candidates?

If that's the metric you're into my friend, you'll be exercised about all the no shows from the Harper Party too I'd guess.

As for head office "appointing" candidates I think I can show you a number of those whose nominations were 'approved' at 24 Sussex and not in the local neighbourhood.

Are those examples shams and frauds too?

I'd say they are.

I think Ms May may very well show Gary Lunn the door on Monday and I think a whole lot of Canadians all across the country are going to say 'Well Done.'

A few very wealthy carpetbaggers who've moved from Alberta to the Saanich Peninsula lately mey be a little upset - frankly, who cares?

As for the funding formula - I think I prefer a vote tax to financing political parties with Stevie's methodology.

His way, the folks with the biggest wallets get the megaphone - that's the US way and any suggestion that it should go that way in Canada is stupid and dangerous.

Green Party

If the Green Party focused on the environment and other "good" things rather than just attacking Harper endlessly and like a broken record just like the NDP and Liberals she may have received more votes. I'm sick of hearing smearing from all of the parties. May shouldn't have joined them - now she has hardly any support anywhere. The Greens may be done unfortunately

Umm

I heard Ms May on the radio the other day and she was very reasonable and respectful - in fact, the central point she made was that she wasn't going to attack the other parties.

Sorry guystone, I think you're off base on this one.

Greens

G West,

To be more clear I am an overall fan of May. I am going to vote for her - my riding will be Conservative no matter who I vote for so if I vote for the Greens she'll get the money for the next election.

Listen to her numerous times and you'll hear her spend about 1/4 of her time at least slamming Harper. Her supporters are about 3/4.

Thats what I am sick of. If one of the opposition parties and their supporters did that they would probably get elected.

Not a resident

Ms May has parachuted herself into the riding, used taxpayers money over the past two years to present nerself as a legitimae candidate for our riding. How long will she stay should she loose ..after all it was on Mulroney's advice that she seek a federal parliament seat on the west coast. I wonder what the ex-pm's next plan for her will be. Oh Lizzie, why don't you go home and let the local Green party run it's own affairs.

GWest

I don't ever approve of head office appointing candidates. By using the excuse that "The old parties do it" May shows she thinks it is perfectly OK to emulate the likes of Harper and Chretien; the same goes for her feeble justifications for parachuting into SGI.
The absentee candidates are a different issue - I don't recall the old parties doing this - we are talking here not about real candidates who actually appear in their constituencies, but "paper" candidates who are completely absent from the campaign, like our local "phantom" Amber van Drielen. As far as I know this is a May innovation and it demonstrates a serious flaw in proportional systems as it would allow a central party campaign to be operated by a tiny well funded elite (such as we can see in the "Big Green" organizations) with no intention of electing local members but aiming at getting enough votes nationally to allow the elitists to appoint themselves and a few cronies to be MPs. This method could be used just as easily by right wing fanatics, anti abortion activists, or anyone else who figures it out, so it is far from being limited to the Greens who have invented it!

If you like the way WCWC and the Sierra Club do democracy you might love May, otherwise she is just one more power hungry individual using whatever means possible to get where she wants - perhaps gaining disproportionate influence in a minority government situation as happens with religious parties in Israel, for example.

As a long time green NDP supporter I believe the Green Party is a diversion, which helps keep the right wing anti environment idealogues like Harper and Christy Clark in government - and if you think Christy is environmentally aware you need to revisit her blind support for the original lake draining Prosperity Mine proposal after even Harper's government found it was unacceptable. This stance of Clark's aligns her with the likes of Walt Cobb and other racists who have alienated First Nations around the country with their over the top rhetoric, and will poison her relationship with First Nations before it has begun!

May's polls are about as reliable as those done by BCTV during the 1991 election. The MSM, normally pretty accurate in predicting riding by riding results, has repeatedly overestimated support for Green leaders' personal campaigns during provincial elections, most notably claiming Adriane Carr was in a tight race on the Sunshine Coast when she actually had about 13% of the vote on election day. The MSM know Green support mostly bleeds the NDP vote and often do little things to help the Greens seem more credible - I wonder why?

Stewart...We'll have to disagree on this one

May hasn't got a lot of choice, in my view, she needs to get into parliament where she'll actually have a chance to make her views known.

I don't have to agree with her or her approach to acknowledge two things which I think are important in a democracy:
1) There is a significant (anything more than 5% on a national basis is significant in my view) proportion of the Canadian people who think the Greens have something important to say to them and for them;
2) May and the Greens have very little choice but to channel their efforts within the current system - however buggered and clunky that system is from the point of view of what we'd probably agree is a poor reflection of actual functional 'democracy'.

If her message and the Greens' influence is so shallow and malign as you think then it will be shown as such if and when Ms May ends up getting to Ottawa.

I'd say she's playing by the rules as they sit currently and I won't hold it against her.

I LIKE the idea of public financing for any political movement that can muster up some minimum floor level of support all across the country: I totally disagree with Stephen Harper and Caroline.E who prefer to have all political funding come from folks with deep pockets and an axe to grind.

That's a big reason why Harper and his friends in Dean Park are so dangerous - they think that they guys with the big bankrolls ought to call the shots. It's schoolyard bully stuff and they should grow up - in my view.

But then, I'm not setting my hair on fire because I think less than $9.00 per living Canadian every time we have an election in this country is a SMALL price to pay for having a say, however small, in the future.

Caroline.E and Stephen Harper are the real elitists and carpetbaggers - not Elizabeth May.

She's been very open about what she's up to and I think the voters of Saanich and Islands - should she replace Gary Lunn - will be very well served by her representation.

And Stewart, as regards the 'relationship' between environmentalists and the NDP I'd say that's pretty much a dead issue.

I got one of Andrew Weaver's pathetic robo calls during the last provincial election pleading for me to vote BC Liberal for the good of the environment in the last election.

I hope he's sufficiently embarrassed by supervening events to NEVER try such bullshit again...The NDP shouldn't look to the Greens for anything other than a shiv in its back.

At the present moment, though, the main enemy is the HARPER Government, anything and anyone who can keep one of Pee Wee's little henchmen out of Ottawa is a positive force for change in the Canada I know and love.

So, yeah, vote Green in Saanich and the Islands - but nowhere else.

Finally, I have no idea why she chose Saanich and the Islands over the Sunshine Coaast - and frankly, I don't care.

Clear enough?

Cheers.

Absentee candidates

The "old parties" use absentee candidates too, it's just that the "old parties" are big enough that they can (usually) find relatively serious candidates to run in most ridings. An example of an absentee candidate run by a major party is NDP candidate Ruth Brosseau in Berthier-Maskinonge, but, again, every party does it. It's been happening for decades if not since Confederation - for example, do you think the Conservatives of the Joe Clarke era ran serious candidates in every Quebec riding, back in the day?

Absentee candidates are a result of our electoral system, where running a candidate in every riding, whether you have a ghost of a chance there or not, is considered necessary for a party to be considered "serious", where you have to run a candidate in a riding for potential supporters to have the option of voting for you, and where a new party has to run at least a nominal candidate in order to gauge which ridings are potential growth ridings for them.

"Taxpayer's money"

re: cboo44: Since taxpayers and voters are, by and large, the same people, the $2 per vote is mostly coming out of that taxpayer/voter's own taxes. (Since about 60% of eligible voters vote, it's more like $1.20 from the taxpayer/voter and about 80c from non-voters.) Another way of looking at it: in my experience it takes about 45 minutes on average to vote, counting travel time and queues at the polling station, which means that the $2/vote effectively "compensates" people who take the trouble to vote at roughly minimum wage. Either way, I don't see the "fraud" or "sham" in taxpayers deciding which party their own taxes should support.

Now what those who oppose the $2/vote never mention, much less object to, is that there's another source of taxpayer support for political parties: the political tax credit. If most people gave large sums of money to political parties this would even out overall like the $2/vote does, but since only a very small minority of people care enough about political parties to give them lots of money, the political tax credit is money taken from the vast majority of taxpayer/voters by a small minority of hyperpartisans. Someone who donates $400 to a political party is donating $100 of their own money and $300 of other taxpayers' money; someone who donates $750 is donating $275 of their own money and $475 of other taxpayers' money. If those who oppose the $2/vote were sincerely bothered by "frauds" or "shams," either of which is a pretty good description of the political tax credit, I'd have expected them to oppose that as well. It is, no doubt, merely a coincidence that removing the $2/vote allowance while keeping the political tax credit would heavily favor, even rig the system in favor of, the one particular political party that's calling for this particular "reform".

Name calling

Regarding the name calling of Stewart MacKenzie and Seth, give me a break. Mr. MacKenzie's psychic powers must be pretty well developed for him to have such detailed knowledge of Ms. May's personal motivations. Focusing on the leader is, unfortunately, the only realistic strategic move in a political system where only the leaders of political parties are invited to well-publicized debates and where elections are decided on a first past the post basis. In a better world we would have some form of proportional representation, but given FPTP, it only makes sense for parties to focus on winnable ridings. All parties do this, even the sainted NDP. The Greens' focus on the leader's riding is an unfortunate commentary on how many winnable ridings they have (one).

Constantly demonizing anyone who disagrees with you is not very constructive, Seth, and it almost certainly costs your position more support than it wins.

As for the NDP's "support" for environmental issues, I've lived in BC 20 years, and in all that time the NDP's done diddly squat for the environment. Like Lucy holding the football, every election they promise that this time they'll be environment-positive, this time will be different, and just like Charlie Brown, every election the environmentally minded voter who votes for the NDP is left kicking at empty air and falling flat on their back. Sorry, Mr. MacKenzie, I'm afraid I'm not as gullible as Charlie Brown.

I think the Conservatives have an appalling record on the environment, on ethics, and on managing the economy, and I definitely would prefer not to have to live under a Harper majority government. As such, I support whichever of the Liberals, NDP, or Greens are most likely to win ridings in which the Conservatives are a contender. (The Harper Conservatives are so bad on environmental issues that a party that's completely useless on environmental issues, such as the NDP, is, relatively, a large improvement.) In Burnaby-Douglas I'd support the NDP, in Vancouver South, where I live, I support the Liberal, and in Saanich/Islands, the party that might defeat the Conservatives is the Greens.

Lunn seems to have a few

Lunn seems to have a few shady characters working to keep him in the job? who is benefitting from their labor? Not the average lunch bucket folks in the riding

Saanich Gulf-Isles is just one of 18 BC Ridings That...

...Can be used deny Mr. Harper his majority if progressives vote strategically.

That list is here.