The Green Party after the election

[cybercoma]

With Elizabeth May taking part in the national debate, which gives The Greens a much better chance of actually holding seats in the house, I have a feeling some crazy nonsense may occur after the election. May is not running a candidate in Dion's riding and vice versa, so there's something fishy going on with those two working together. I think it's fishy because May presumably would take votes from Dion and his "green shift", so why would Dion want to help her out by not running someone in her riding?

Here's the what if....

What if the number of seats between the Conservatives and the Liberals are very close after the election and the Green Party manages to win enough seats to make the combined number held by LPC and GP greater than those seats held by the CPC. How would everyone feel if all The Green Party candidates then changed to the Liberal Party? What would that mean for the house if the newly combined liberals outnumber the governing party? Would it be within their right to challenge Michaelle Jean to declare their leader the PM without them technically having won the election?

Or is this too tinfoil-hat-esque?

[Bryan]

Or is this too tinfoil-hat-esque?

I think so. I'll be shocked if May wins even her own seat, nevermind enough to be of any help to Dion.

The most likely scenario if Green support holds, is them taking just enough votes away from the Liberals for them to end up losing even in ridings that should be totally safe. In other words, a Green surge is a CPC win.

Besides, May will probably say something insane during the debate anyway and kill off any momentum she may have had.

[cybercoma]

I liked what Jim Harris of the Green Party said on the news today about saving auto manufacturing jobs in Ontario. I'm paraphrasing, but he said that stricter environmental regulations on automobiles would mean more people would buy North American vehicles, therefore the 20,000 jobs lost would have been saved. That's what they would have done because they're fiscally conservative (would not have given out grants) but socially progressive because they care about the environment.

[Bryan]

I liked what Jim Harris of the Green Party said on the news today about saving auto manufacturing jobs in Ontario. I'm paraphrasing, but he said that stricter environmental regulations on automobiles would mean more people would buy North American vehicles, therefore the 20,000 jobs lost would have been saved. That's what they would have done because they're fiscally conservative (would not have given out grants) but socially progressive because they care about the environment.

Aren't most of the really fuel efficient cars either imports, or foreign manufacturers building here (the ones that are NOT closing plants)?

Edited September 12, 2008 by Bryan

[Smallc]

Aren't most of the really fuel efficient cars either imports, or foreign manufacturers building here (the ones that are NOT closing plants)?

Some are, but GM and Ford buid some very fue efficient cars right here in NA and some right here in Canada.

[cybercoma]

Aren't most of the really fuel efficient cars either imports, or foreign manufacturers building here (the ones that are NOT closing plants)?

GM has had a huge push on their hybrid line over the last few years and it hasn't helped them.

[gullyfourmyle]

GM has had a huge push on their hybrid line over the last few years and it hasn't helped them.

By ignoring the youth market for the last fifteen years, GM, Ford and Chrysler have given away much of their present and future market share. Today's youth is not much interested in what they see as inferior technology.

The lack of foresight was nearly unprecedented and constitutes possibly the longest run of a business sector continuously ignoring market demands through sheer economic arrogance.

But it doesn't matter whether the technology is inferior or superior. It's the perception. American Motors Corporation was "killed off" the same way - by misleading perception.

AMC pioneered and designed a lot of the technology and methodology that most auto manufacturing is based on today. If Chrysler hadn't bought AMC; Chrysler and AMC would have disappeared at almost the same time. Both companies were perceived as producing junk cars. Chrysler actually was. AMC's sin was in producing butt ugly cars. It doesn't matter how well a car is made, if it's ugly it won't sell. If it's total junk but looks good it will last right up until a better alternative arrives.

The Asian car manufacturers made butt ugly, junk cars when they first started building here as well. They went after AMC's traditional market - people who wanted economical, safe transportation.

Not being burdened by a macho muscle car image and a history of landing barge sized cruisers, the market had no expectations of Asian and European manufacturers and so their offerings were on a take it or leave it basis. No one expected them to build a Caddy or a Lincoln sized boat so they didn't. Their tech research was done back in Asia where the market demanded fuel efficiency, fit and finish - foreign words here until a very few years ago.

North American manufacturers have a huge trend to buck to avoid annihilation. Youth today is not impressed with GM, Ford or Chrysler. The re-emergence of the pony cars is likely too little too late. The old duffers driving them don't help the image and the price tags are actually a continuation of the problem. The performance versions will be too expensive for the youth market to afford and the street racing legislation certainly is no encouragement.

The original muscle cars were simple, cheap to buy and looked awesome. Anyone with a half decent job could afford to buy one and race it at least occasionally on the street without much difficulty or police harassment. The type of street racing was nowhere near as dangerous as the variety practiced today so it drew only intermittent attention from the media and the police.

The oil crisis and the economic downturn don't help.

The demand for mind boggling muscle cars is still there but in the absence of cheap gas, low car prices, and escalating incomes, the market interest has to focus on imports.

The expensive imports such as BMWs are the natural trade ups from the El Cheapos. Domestics don't get a look. The Asian imports - known formerly as rice rockets but now better known as tuners are amazing collections of brilliant technology and have earned that reputation.

The domestics had to have a gun held to their heads to offer hybrids that could have been offered back in 1970 and earlier. Detroit sat on the technology all that time. There is no forgiveness for that. Competitive technology was bought off or otherwise obliterated and blocked from marketability.

The domestics will continue to pay and pay for the sins of the distant and recent past.

If they don't survive, they will only be mourned by the old duffers.

[PoliticalCitizen]

Aren't most of the really fuel efficient cars either imports, or foreign manufacturers building here (the ones that are NOT closing plants)?

Aren't US companies "foreign" as well? We have a small Canadian company making electric cars: Zenn. Why don't we start expanding it instead of sponsoring the American polluters?

[jay22]

With Elizabeth May taking part in the national debate, which gives The Greens a much better chance of actually holding seats in the house, I have a feeling some crazy nonsense may occur after the election. May is not running a candidate in Dion's riding and vice versa, so there's something fishy going on with those two working together. I think it's fishy because May presumably would take votes from Dion and his "green shift", so why would Dion want to help her out by not running someone in her riding?

Here's the what if....

What if the number of seats between the Conservatives and the Liberals are very close after the election and the Green Party manages to win enough seats to make the combined number held by LPC and GP greater than those seats held by the CPC. How would everyone feel if all The Green Party candidates then changed to the Liberal Party? What would that mean for the house if the newly combined liberals outnumber the governing party? Would it be within their right to challenge Michaelle Jean to declare their leader the PM without them technically having won the election?

Or is this too tinfoil-hat-esque?

If the greens are smart i really think they could be a major player in the next elections.But if may brings up the i am a women card again or can't handle the heat at the debate.It could do alot of damage to the party.

Edited September 12, 2008 by jay22

[Wild Bill]

By ignoring the youth market for the last fifteen years, GM, Ford and Chrysler have given away much of their present and future market share. Today's youth is not much interested in what they see as inferior technology.

North American manufacturers have a huge trend to buck to avoid annihilation. Youth today is not impressed with GM, Ford or Chrysler. The re-emergence of the pony cars is likely too little too late. The old duffers driving them don't help the image and the price tags are actually a continuation of the problem. The performance versions will be too expensive for the youth market to afford and the street racing legislation certainly is no encouragement.

The original muscle cars were simple, cheap to buy and looked awesome. Anyone with a half decent job could afford to buy one and race it at least occasionally on the street without much difficulty or police harassment. The type of street racing was nowhere near as dangerous as the variety practiced today so it drew only intermittent attention from the media and the police.

The domestics will continue to pay and pay for the sins of the distant and recent past.

If they don't survive, they will only be mourned by the old duffers.

+1! It's worse!

I spent some time talking with my own teenagers and some of their friends about how they feel towards cars and driving. What a difference from my youth! It's not just that ALL of my admittedly tiny sample thought that domestics were poorer quality. It's also that they weren't enthusiastic about driving and owning a car at all!

To them a car is an expensive piece of tin, pure and simple, to be avoided at all costs. If you are unlucky enough to live in an area with poor public transit then you do what you have to but there's no joy in it!

What a sea change! Since Henry Ford first started up his assembly line the market has been conditioned to look at a car as something sexy that will provide fun and freedom. Now it's simply an expense. Who can afford to "go cruising" with the price of fuel today?

You're right, the "suits" appear to have focused exclusively on us old "boomers". As we die off, so will the American car companies, it would seem.

[gullyfourmyle]

Aren't US companies "foreign" as well? We have a small Canadian company making electric cars: Zenn. Why don't we start expanding it instead of sponsoring the American polluters?

All of the provinces have to regulate vehicles such as the Zenn independently. There is way more to that sort of investigative determination than meets the eye due to the potential for litigation.

All road, weather and driving habits have to be dealt with exhaustively.

If the Zenn had come along 30 years ago, we'd be driving them today. The Segway suffered the same fate. Two great pieces of technology that could be worked into our lifestyles without much difficulty.

As for Elizabeth May, having met her, I don't have any fears about her ability to handle herself. She is smart on her feet and knows the issues well. That's why none of the other debaters wanted her in the debate. There is every chance she could show any one of them up.

Of course the reverse can happen too but she is definitely qualified to be there.

US cars are as non-foreign as we can tolerate. Canadians have a long history of not supporting our own industries. The Zenn might become an exception if it's ever allowed to be sold here. But it has a big problem. The same problem all vehicles of its type have - it couldn't live in most Canadian markets due to its short range and lack of power.

In the GTA and Montreal, most people don't comprehend the vast distances other Canadians have to deal with to go anywhere. The Zenn simply can't make the long hauls in terms of speed or range without stopping for a recharge in the middle of nowhere where there is nothing but a pine tree or a fence post to plug into. Then there is the weather. Canadian winters may be warming but they haven't warmed enough to make the Zenn a reliable people's choice in most areas.

But that isn't a reason why it couldn't be an effective urban commuter. So you have to wonder what the hold up really is.

When I was at Auto Fest in Oshawa a couple of weeks ago, I was shocked at the demographics of the people exhibiting and attending as audience. They came in wheel chairs, with walkers, white canes, ordinary canes, scooters, and people to hold them up. Not many younger people attended. It was like family day at a giant old folks home.

Old duffers surrounded by amazing automotive works of art with no one to pass it on to. All the skill and knowledge essentially ignored by the up and coming generation. That put the exclamation mark in Wild Bill's post for me. It was like being present at the extinction of the dinosaurs.

In the US, they still don't get it. Lucky for me since I do a little business in that field. But my market is being buried and cremated at an alarming rate. It's pretty hard to ignore but they're managing it.

The aversion to driving is being brought about by government support for Smart Growth. That is the official Ontario government plan to turn the GTA into a giant Jane/Finch corridor - a world class monument to crime. Most people don't understand that's what's coming. But it is.

[Argus]

What if the number of seats between the Conservatives and the Liberals are very close after the election and the Green Party manages to win enough seats to make the combined number held by LPC and GP greater than those seats held by the CPC. How would everyone feel if all The Green Party candidates then changed to the Liberal Party? What would that mean for the house if the newly combined liberals outnumber the governing party? Would it be within their right to challenge Michaelle Jean to declare their leader the PM without them technically having won the election?

Or is this too tinfoil-hat-esque?

If the Greens even managed to finish second anywhere they would consider that a huge victory. They have very limited support and most of it is among younger Canadians who tend to not vote anyway. Elizabeth May is the kind of person who, the more you see her, the less you want to see her. Her inclusion in the debate gives the Greens a certain status but I can't imagine her shrill, whiny, lecturing nanny voice managing to convince anyone to vote for her. She is nothing but a professional agitator and complainer and has never, so far as I know, held a real job in her entire life. Born to well-off American parents she became a protester and organizer in college for every faddish left wing/environmental cause under the sun, from no-nukes to save-the-whales/trees/dolphins to homelessness et al. And unlike most young people she never grew out of it. She is EXACTLY the kind of person who most exemplifies the mindless leftist dedication to Kyoto and CO2 emission reductions and Al Gore school of frantic environmental despair.

[Argus]

I liked what Jim Harris of the Green Party said on the news today about saving auto manufacturing jobs in Ontario. I'm paraphrasing, but he said that stricter environmental regulations on automobiles would mean more people would buy North American vehicles, therefore the 20,000 jobs lost would have been saved. That's what they would have done because they're fiscally conservative (would not have given out grants) but socially progressive because they care about the environment.

North American auto manufacturers who consistently lag behind European and Asian auto manufacturers in terms of emissions, mileage etc? As exemplified by GM, which decided it didn't like the profit margin of electric cars (actually, it was that electric cars didn't need nearly the amount of profitable service and repairs as regular cars) and so, after building a bunch of fairly good ones with the aid of a massive government grant, took them all out and crushed them - despite massive protests, thus washing their hands of the whole idea of environmentally friendly automobiles?

Yeah, okay.

[Bryan]

For the people who think she'll make any difference in the election, debate or not:

What seat(s) do you think she can win?

[Wild Bill]

For the people who think she'll make any difference in the election, debate or not:

What seat(s) do you think she can win?

None!

May's only hope is some change to our system that will give some proportional representation. Some feel that would be more democratic. Myself, I'm not so sure.

The Greens may get 5-6% of the popular vote across the country. Should this mean 5-6% of the seats? I don't think so. One of the GOOD things about our present system is that the entry bar ensures that a party must gain enough support to win a seat in ONE geographical riding!

Canada is a huge country with many varied regions. We NEED to keep as much regional representation in our political system as possible! Especially when we don't have an effective upper House or Senate to defend those regions' interests, unlike virtually ever other parliamentary democracy in the world.

If a party can't concentrate enough voter support in even a few ridings to win then I submit they just aren't enough of an effective show of popular support to deserve seats in the Commons!

It's interesting that those parties most in favour of proportional representation are those that seem unlikely to ever get more seats any other way. It is an argument for the losers, it would seem.

Whatever, if we do decide to amend our system I do hope that we do NOT follow the proposal put forth on the last Ontario ballot, where after the election we'd see party MPP's giving seats to unelected people, from a list made by the party and not by the people.

Talk about a slippery slope! Why have elections at all?

[jdobbin]

What if the number of seats between the Conservatives and the Liberals are very close after the election and the Green Party manages to win enough seats to make the combined number held by LPC and GP greater than those seats held by the CPC. How would everyone feel if all The Green Party candidates then changed to the Liberal Party? What would that mean for the house if the newly combined liberals outnumber the governing party? Would it be within their right to challenge Michaelle Jean to declare their leader the PM without them technically having won the election?

I believe that Greens will have a higher percentage of the vote this election but the vote is still spread out too far. I haven't seen it concentrated in one or two seats to put them over the top.

If you think about how the NDP grew, they started in working class communities or ones with a strong union. The Greens still haven't found a perfect riding where their message appeals so strongly as to overcome the other parties.

I still their breakthrough is more likely to come in byelections.

[Moonbox]

I think their message will fall flat as gas prices continue to rise and the economy continues to deteriorate.

I'm also 100% certain May will not impress anyone in the debate.

Edited September 12, 2008 by Moonbox

[Ontario Loyalist]

I think their message will fall flat as gas prices continue to rise and the economy continues to deteriorate.

I'm also 100% certain May will not impress anyone in the debate.

I don't know how it would "fall flat" considering that the Greens advocate the use of alternate fuels, and would be the most committed to finding solutions to the current problem. Our dependency on oil is in part due to the willingness of the Conservatives and Liberals to allow corporations to get their way, and theoretically they should be punished by an angry electorate for allowing this to happen. Instead, one of them is likely to get elected back in and the parties (NDP and Greens) most willing to do something about it will not.

[M.Dancer]

I don't know how it would "fall flat" considering that the Greens advocate the use of alternate fuels, and would be the most committed to finding solutions to the current problem.

Then the greens advocate starvation for the 3rd world and sky rocketting food prices. Stupidest thing there is is growing food to turn into fuel.

Biofuel production boosts food prices by 75%, report suggests

http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2008/07/0...ofuel-food.html

Edited September 12, 2008 by M.Dancer

[Ontario Loyalist]

For the people who think she'll make any difference in the election, debate or not:

What seat(s) do you think she can win?

There's a slight possibility that she could win her own riding. There are a few ridings in BC and Ontario that are slightly possible as well.

The thing about our electoral system is that it favours regional parties and that's not what the Greens are. They are a national party. However, it looks as though parts of BC are becoming a Green region as well as southwestern Ontario, if the last provincial election is any indication.

The Greens are the only real alternative for change, and it remains to be seen if that's what Canadians really want. My guess is no; Canadians have been groomed to be politically unsophisticated and content too maintain the status quo.

[Ontario Loyalist]

Then the greens advocate starvation for the 3rd world a sky rocketting food prices. Stupidest thing there is is growing food to turn into fuel.

Biofuel can be produced from a number of sources and doesn't have to come from the edible part of a plant. There is a lot of corporate interests involved in development of biofuel. Same goes for farmers; they'll grow whatever makes them the most money. But of course you'll happily foist the blame on environmentalists.

As it stands, though, the third world is starving anyway. Why? It has nothing to do with growing food for fuel, rather the cost, logistics, etc. of transporting the food to places where the population cannot be sustained.

Let's see one example of where they advocate it?

Or is this just another example of a stupd M.Dancer post, like so many thousand of others?

[Moonbox]

I don't know how it would "fall flat" considering that the Greens advocate the use of alternate fuels, and would be the most committed to finding solutions to the current problem. Our dependency on oil is in part due to the willingness of the Conservatives and Liberals to allow corporations to get their way, and theoretically they should be punished by an angry electorate for allowing this to happen. Instead, one of them is likely to get elected back in and the parties (NDP and Greens) most willing to do something about it will not.

It would 'fall flat' because any drastic environmental initiatives are likely by ANY theory to make doing business more expensive in Canada. Now I'm totally for a greener Canada but making the environment your #1 issue in an election during an economic downturn is not likely to strike a chord with Canadians. Campaigning on the economy will. I wouldn't be surprised if the Greens do better this year, but I certainly don't think they're going to explode like some people think.

[Ontario Loyalist]

It's interesting that those parties most in favour of proportional representation are those that seem unlikely to ever get more seats any other way. It is an argument for the losers, it would seem.

Yawn... really? Democracy is for losers? It would really be great if the issue could be discussed in a more intelligent and rational manner. You know that there are fundamental principles involved. Or at least you should.

In a democracy, the people should be fairly represented. That means that if 5%, 12%, 15%, or 21% of the electorate vote for a party, that should be reflected in government.

Whatever, if we do decide to amend our system I do hope that we do NOT follow the proposal put forth on the last Ontario ballot, where after the election we'd see party MPP's giving seats to unelected people, from a list made by the party and not by the people.

The system proposed is used successfully in Europe. It still astonishes me that people cling to simplistic misconceptions about how it would work.

[Ontario Loyalist]

It would 'fall flat' because any drastic environmental initiatives are likely by ANY theory to make doing business more expensive in Canada. Now I'm totally for a greener Canada but making the environment your #1 issue in an election during an economic downturn is not likely to strike a chord with Canadians. Campaigning on the economy will. I wouldn't be surprised if the Greens do better this year, but I certainly don't think they're going to explode like some people think.

The problem with the economy is in part due to high fuel prices, which some would say are abnormally high. We know that Harper is tight with Big Oil and they're the ones who are benefiting from this situation; why would you want to vote the guy in for more of the same?

[M.Dancer]

In a democracy, the people should be fairly represented. That means that if 5%, 12%, 15%, or 21% of the electorate vote for a party, that should be reflected in government.

That's one form of democracy. We use another. The one we use works fine and has worked fine for 141 years. No need to fix what isn't broke. No need to tamper with what works. On top of that, no matter who you vote for, you are still represented, and that in a nutshell is democracy.