Home > Federal, Greens > Where Be The Green Party Strategy?

Where Be The Green Party Strategy?

July 12, 2007

I must say, I’m having a hard time understanding what the heck the Greens are up to now-a-days.

The Liberal-Green deal, for instance, made no sense for the Green strategy-wise at all (Not to mention undemocratic to both parties’ grassroots; as for undemocratic to voters, I’ve never brought the fact that it is one’s right to vote for a particular party).

Now, Dipper Chick brings news of a potential movement of Saanich-Gulf Islands Grassroots Greens to not run a Green candidate there. Well, actually, this is the second such movement by Greens: the first, spearheaded by Green leadership candidate Jim Fannon, was to not run in St. Catherines. I believe that particular movement failed to gain support at the local Green nomination.

Well, I’ve got to say this: at least these two movements are internally democratic. But the big question for me is where is the strategy?

I mean, how do you build up a political party by giving up immediately before the election? It would be kinda hard to build up the volunteer base, public profile, and organizational capacity in that riding if the party isn’t running in that riding.

Secondly, isn’t Saanich-Gulf Islands one of the most successful ridings for the Greens in the entirety of Canada. Why would a fledging political party give that up? Seriously?

Or how about the $50,000 question? If the Green Party are not going to run candidates in elections, why should it even exist? I mean, I’m pretty sure that the Green are a separate party because they believe in something that other parties don’t?

So the end question for me is, why are the Greens following such a stupid strategy that will probably inhibit their growth? (Not that I mind, but still). I don’ t think its to stop some legendary-evil-Conservative-Party-of-doom; considering that the Prince George – Peace River Green candidate is claiming that the Greens are the true Conservatives (another questionable strategy: trying to out-Conservative Jay Hill).

I guess that in the end, if the Greens don’t start acting like a real political party, it ain’t going to be successful.

Advertisements
Categories: Federal, Greens
  1. July 12, 2007 at 1:47 pm

    Who can blame these people? This is entirely consistant with the strategy adopted by the “Liberal spokesperson who runs the Green Party.” They are just following her edict of supporting the Liberals, even if it means sinking the one seat they did well in.

    Consider the irony: They chose a new leader to make them relevant, and all she’s done is deliberately make them irrelevant.

    PS – Why has no one heard from Cherneshenko?

  2. Scott Tribe
    July 12, 2007 at 2:18 pm

    ..and yet another Dipper blogger who seems to forget its the Conservatives in power.

    Unfortunately, this shows to me the NDP – or its bloggers, but an argument can be made its NDP strategy as well – are more concerned with making sure they gain seats or keep their seats at the expense of the Liberals and Greens. The fact the Conservatives are in power and the most regressive politically of the parties is apparently of secondary concern.

    NBCD Edit: Fixed typo: “ti” to “to”.

  3. Northern BC Dipper
    July 12, 2007 at 2:33 pm

    Huh Scott?

    Unfortunately, this shows to me the NDP – or its bloggers, but an argument can be made its NDP strategy as well – are more concerned with making sure they gain seats or keep their seats at the expense of the Liberals and Greens.

    The goal of a political party is to gain as many seats, be it taken from the Liberals, Conservative, Bloc, or Greens in the NDP’s case, so that it can become government. I thought you had a honours degree in Political Science? This should have been your first lesson you were taught. Please learn it.

  4. July 12, 2007 at 5:36 pm

    There is not going to be a landslide of quiting Green Candidates. Are there a few Greens with martyr complexes that are willing to toss themselves onto their own swords yes, but I believe they are few and far between, I’ve not met one personaly.

    New people are joining to make a difference not get slapped around and told they wasted their time. These Martyrs are going to find theselves out numbered and unwelcome in most ridings, the sooner the better. True grass root organization have these issues. If there is no trouble in paradise, chances are the party has become too authoritarian and centralized.

    As for the True conservatives comment, what’s a conservative?

    Harpers cabal, no they are more like neo fascist, neo con, neo stupid.

    Do Greens believe in market forces, for the most part yes.
    Do Greens believe in balanced budgets, yes
    Do Greens believe in less income taxes, yes
    smaller gov and less spending, yes
    These are all things Conservatives would have agreed they believed in at one point, a lot of Liberals would claim the same. Cons don’t seem to believe this anymore, on spending the dippers are probably as conservative as Harper is these days. who’d have thought?

    The Greens however are not war mongers, not socially regresseive, are enviromentalists, support a basic minimum income and with their concerns over NAFTA , globalization and SPP they are probably more nationalistic than either the Libs or Cons.

    This right/left conservative/liberal spectrum thing is to narrow and too inaccurate to quantify today’s parties. Lets talk about what each of us believes issue by issue rather than how we label each other, that’s whats more important.

    The Green Candidate definately made a mistake musing out loud about how to entice Conservatives to vote Green, a blog is not private, duh!
    It was an error to even breach the topic of the sterotype labels when most of us discount their validity. No one was cheering his article

    I believe that Greens don’t need to compare themselves to other’s ideals to get validation they are different and that is the point and their strength. If we can’t make gains being differnent what’s the point of becoming what we are trying to defeat.

  5. janfromthebruce
    July 12, 2007 at 6:13 pm

    “Cons don’t seem to believe this anymore, on spending the dippers are probably as conservative as Harper is these days. who’d have thought?”

    Those old wives’ tales are so tired. Let’s see, first govt to get out of deficit in the mid 90s when every govt – both federally or provinically – whether Con, Liberal or NDP – that was Sask. NDP. Got elected and had to clean up govt after the corrupt Cons sank the province into deficit and left in Scandel and had to change their party name to Sask Party. Too bad one has to resort to propaganda. I guess Greens aren’t different from other pollitical parties.

  6. July 13, 2007 at 7:37 am

    “The goal of a political party is to gain as many seats, be it taken from the Liberals, Conservative, Bloc, or Greens in the NDP’s case, so that it can become government. I thought you had a honours degree in Political Science? This should have been your first lesson you were taught. Please learn it.”

    ^^^
    If that’s what you think a political party should be, then that’s a pretty disgusting viewpoint in my mind. I’d hate to think the only reason the NDP exists is to gain seats.

  7. Northern BC Dipper
    July 13, 2007 at 12:05 pm

    Uh, Dissidence, if a political party can’t become government, than it can’t do any of the things that it wants to do.

    I’d say your viewpoint is a) naive, or b) putting your head in the sand.

  8. July 13, 2007 at 7:37 pm

    It is not every day that I agree with with a NDPer, but when faced with naivete that up until now I hoped only came from six year olds, I feel I must interject. I have yet to meet a political party whose interest did not lie in vote grabbing. it may not be their only interest, but it is a neccesary evil. History is written by the winners, and so is policy. There is only so much one can do from a constituency office in a strip mall. The Greens can hope for all the social change they like, but unless they wake up at Sussex Drive it can’t do them much good. There is a difference between sitting in the pews and standing at the pulpit.

    P.S. the reason the cons don’t advocate small government and less income taxes is because they ARE government, and no politician in his right mind would advoicate picking his own pocket unless it was absolutely critical.

  9. July 13, 2007 at 8:15 pm

    NBD Dipper,

    If a party trades away too much of its core belief system in order to be more appealing to the elusive ‘centre’ in order to gain those seats, then its devoid of any legitimacy to pass legislation on what it originally intended to, and likely won’t pass said legislation.

    We can have a NDP government, but if it lacks ‘NDP values’, then who cares really. Personally I care much more about what a goverment actually does in office than what the party name is. Putting pragmatism too far over policy is a dangerous slope.

    You can call it naivity if you’d like, and you have, but I’d like to think of it as ideology. It’s a shame that someone would actually believe in such a ‘foolish’ concept. Pity if ideology ever gets in the way of opportunism.

  10. July 13, 2007 at 8:18 pm

    …And look, don’t get me wrong here, I’m well aware of what parties do to win seats. I’m well aware that most parties main focus is on winning enough seats to form government or carry significant weight in the event of a minority. In fact, it’s likely their raison d’etre. While this pragmatism might be deemed necessary by some, yourself included, I’m not a fan of it at all.

  11. Northern BC Dipper
    July 13, 2007 at 8:26 pm

    Dissidence, I’ll tell you what: I certainly feel that it would be stupid to follow Scott Tribe’s constant suggestions to Blogging Dippers that the NDP should not attack the Liberals or Green at anytime what-so-ever simply because the Conservatives are in power and that the Liberals, Green, and NDP are supposed to be a united happy progressive family.

    If NDP policies and strategies result in the Liberals losing seats in favour of the NDP, then I’m going NOT to shed any tears for the Liberals, I’m going to be happy for our success.

    But in the end, the NDP can possibly gain from both the Liberals and the Conservatives, so don’t think I’ve left the Tories out either.

    Edit: forgot an important NOT

  12. July 14, 2007 at 1:00 pm

    O.K.

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: