May 9th, 2005

Filed under:
Politics
13 Comments »

Fear the Green Party

Regular readers will recall that I voted Green in the last election. Here’s why. The Liberal party has done little to endear me since then, so I’m likely going to vote Green in the next election, too.

BlogsCanada points to this Macleans article in which Mary Janigan tells a cautionary tale about voting for the Greens because you’re disenchanted with all the other parties. The article ends thusly:

But voters should be sure the Greens’ evolving amalgam of the practical and the highly problematic is what they really want. Accidents do happen.

In light of the fact that they’ve never elected an MP, I think her worry is a bit premature. Still, in the last election, the Greens increased their percentage of the popular vote by five times. Currently, they’re polling as high as 10%. Unless we go to some form of proportional representation, that’s not going to get anybody elected, but it’s still promising.

Of course, if I were them, I’d change their name. They’re no longer a single issue party, and their name may be holding them back.

Comments: 13 Responses so far

double-plus-ungood
May 9th, 2005
10:46 am

Unless we go to some form of proportional representation, that’s not going to get anybody elected, but it’s still promising.

Is that a plug for the STV? If the STV system had been in place for the last election, I think about 15% of the legislature would be Green Party right now. Plus one MLA representing the Marijauna Party.

[Reply]

sxKitten
May 9th, 2005
12:55 pm

That’d make us popular with the US.

[Reply]

KevinG
May 9th, 2005
7:26 pm

We are a single issue party but, we have a multifaceted approach.

[Reply]

Melanie
May 10th, 2005
10:02 am

The NDP used to be the party people voted for when they were disenchanted with the “main parties”. Then it changed to a vote for the reform party and now it’s the green party.Funny how ideology plays no role in the voting decision.

[Reply]

Paolo
May 10th, 2005
2:34 pm

I voted green and I’ll vote green again if I have to but I don’t think we should be having another election because a corrupt government is about as surprising as having a wet fish.

Given the amount of money we’re talking about here, I’d say the real scandal would be spending hundreds of millions to vote out a government guilty of abusing a smaller sum of money. But if I have to, I’ll vote green again because in the near future the US is going to completely deplete their resources and guess which neighbour they’ll turn to in order to continue their gluttonous ways? If we have most other parties in power they’ll sell the US every last tree, fish and mineral we have and I don’t like the look of that kind of future.

How’s that ideology? ;)

[Reply]

double-plus-ungood
May 10th, 2005
4:25 pm

But if I have to, I’ll vote green again because in the near future the US is going to completely deplete their resources and guess which neighbour they’ll turn to in order to continue their gluttonous ways?

Hmm. What’s the Green Party’s position on defense spending?

[Reply]

Darren
May 10th, 2005
4:29 pm

I found this on the Green Party’s site.

It’s just an overview, but I’m sure if you emailed them they’d give you an answer. They’ve been very responsive when I’ve sent an enquiry.

[Reply]

double-plus-ungood
May 10th, 2005
4:36 pm

I looked into their Canadian security Committee’s web page. They suggest cutting Canadian military spending by 20%. Along with criticizing the existing military for not being able to respond to situations like Rwanda (or, currently, the Sudan). Which Romeo Dallaire has said was partly due to the poor funding of the Canadian military.

With the current sad state of international cooperation, wouldn’t this be a good time to be increasing military spending, not cutting it? Especially with the peacekeeping role that our military is primarily used for?

[Reply]

Darren
May 10th, 2005
5:05 pm

The Rwandan genocide occurred because of the West’s lack of political fortitude, not because of Canada’s shoddy military.

Canada provided unarmed military observers and a half-dozen Hercules aircraft. That’s more than nearly every other Western nation (most notably, the US and Great Britain). If Canada was inclined, they could have easily sent a great deal more than that. What was the sum total of the west’s armed military contribution? 440 Belgian soldiers, who withdrew in the midst of the killing.

A gutless UN security council consigned a million Rwandans to death. So, in short, the West only sends troops where there’s economic or political value to be gained. I don’t favour spending money on troops who are going to stay at home when they’re needed elsewhere.

The Green Party favours a rapid response force for international peacekeeping. So do I. We need (in the words of one conservative blogger, who’s name I forget) “a small force, armed to the teeth”.

I agree that our military is pretty shoddy. However, I’m no military analyst, so I can’t say whether that force needs to be twice or half the size of our current armed forces.

[Reply]

double-plus-ungood
May 11th, 2005
9:18 am

You’re quite right, Darren, about the failure of the security council to act on the recommendations of UNAMIR, but if you read “Shake Hands With the Devil”, while Dallaire gives credit to the Canadian response, he also details how ill-equipped the Canadian military is, and how difficult it was to get personnel and equipment.

I’m no war monger, but I think our military really needs beefing up right now, not tearing down. I also agree on a well equipped UN quick intervention force, but that will require quite a bit of reworking of the UN Charter to implement.

Anyway, not really applicable issues in a provincial election. If we had the STV implemented here in BC, I’d probably throw a vote or two to the Green Party candidates in my riding to help get a voice of environmentalism into the legislature, but until then, I can’t spare them my single vote.

Which may be why the Green Party candidate in my riding is pushing for Yes on STV.

[Reply]

Darren
May 11th, 2005
9:36 am

I happen to be reading “Shake Hands with the Devil” right now. While I’m not denying that Dallaire points to the shoddiness of the Canadian military, that’s not even a top-twenty reason for the crisis in Rawanda. Belgian colonialism, extremist factions, tribal history and the apathy of western nations are to blame. Like I said, Canada sent all of 2 military personnel to Rawanda. Despite our dodgy military, we could have sent 2000, some helicopters and some old tanks if we really wanted to. But, as the book points out, we really didn’t.

[Reply]

double-plus-ungood
May 11th, 2005
10:58 am

Quite true, the state of the military wasn’t the main cause. It just irked me that he had to have all kinds of second-hand crap. He has some nicer stuff to say about the Canadian military later in the book.

It’s a gut-wrenching read. I had to put the book down a few times and take a couple of deep breaths in places.

By the way, if you have the time and energy and haven’t seen it yet, Canada’s proposal to change the UN’s concept of sovereignity in order to prevent future genocides is quite good, IMO. It’s called “The Responsibility to Protect”.

[Reply]

Chris Burd
May 12th, 2005
7:09 am

Hi Darren,

As you say, the state of the Canadian military wasn’t a top-20 in the Rwanda catastrophe. But I think the broader point is that a soft-power approach to foreign policy (which presumably the Greens would support) requires a stronger military than we have. If we the United States to play World Policeman (a demented, bullying, self-serving policeman), middle powers need military strength.

Still, I treat the Green’s proposed 20 percent cut as a mindless hangover from Vietnam-era pacifism. If they ever got close to power (say, in a minority government) they would presumably rethink it.

[Reply]

Add a comment