I wasn't going to write about this, but it has stirred up far more anguish among progressives than I would have imagined, so what the hell? Since I'm in a hurry I'm stealing my comment back from Ted.
I don't understand the gnashing of teeth over the deal between the Liberals and Green Party, as it can work to the benefit in both. For the Greens, May gets a realistic shot at knocking off MacKay. For the Libs, they will be become the second choice of a presumably substantial portion of Green Party voters. In ridings where the Greens have no hope (probably most of them), this may be worth a percentage point or three, and that might translate into a fistful of closely contested seats. Take a look at SES pollster Nik Nanos here for the skinny on how this works out. (Ignore the hacks writing before and after him)
The only downside for Dion, other than the media panic at the thought he might actually represent a new and different kind of politics, is if May gets into the debates and make an impression. But I hope that's a risk he's willing to take; I hope some other part of this quid pro quo means supporting her inclusion.
"The only downside for Dion, other than the media panic "
ReplyDeleteSpoken like a true drinker of LPC bathwater.
the real downside is it makes Dion look like a moron, a chickenshit, a diddler a political baby face.
Chretien must be apoplectic. The LPC members in North Nova must be pissed and every LPC riding association across the country must be gearing up to stab Dion in the back if he even looks at their riding.
Dion is a deadly dud, a very, very deadly dud. Couldn't happen to a nicer political party.
Gunter nails it . . .
ReplyDeleteThe great Dion-May coalition
The quasi-alliance of the Liberals with the Green Party, that has been rumoured about for weeks, was confirmed this morning by the Liberals themselves.
This is silly and wrong on so many levels, it's hard to know where to begin to dissect it. But it's a good thing for Conservative political fortunes, since I suspect it will harm both the Liberals and the Greens, and aid the Tories in winning a number of ridings through further fragmentation of the anti-Conservative vote on the left.
Some Liberals have claimed their party will not run anyone in Central Nova (the riding held by Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay and the riding sought by Green Party Leader Elizabeth May), because it is political convention in this country for other parties not to run candidates against their opponents' leaders.
This sounds nice, but it total hogwash.
You know, I'm pretty sure there was a Liberal running against Stephen Harper and a Tory against Paul Martin in January 2006. It is a tradition not to run too hard against another party's leader, but it is ridiculous to say party's never run against their opponents' leaders.
What's more, the Libs ran against Elizabeth May in London North-Centre (and beat her) in a byelection in November.
And, to the extent there is a gentlemen's agreement that other parties not run concerted campaigns against other leaders, that convention does not include new leaders targeting the ridings of sitting senior ministers, then having all the other parties snickeringly ganging up to beat him.
This is one of those sneering moves that is only about half as clever and the brains behind it think it is. It might succeed in convincing diehard party supporters and undergrad poli sci students of the brilliance of those behind it, but no one else.
I think it also adds to the perception that Stephane Dion is weak and too obsessed with global warming as an issue. He decision not to run a Liberal in Central Nova in return for May's endorsement makes it look as if he is conceding that he cannot stop the Tories -- not just MacKay -- and has to make backroom deals with the Greens to do his dirty work for him.
And what about the Greens who chose that party because they dislike Dion and the Liberals? What do they do now that their leader has issued a joint news release with Dion saying "We recognize that a government in which Stephane Dion served as Prime Minister could work well with a Green Caucus of MPs, led by Elizabeth May?"
Here are a number of other ways in which this is silly or wrong, or both:
-- May said yesterday that the Greens, Libs, NDP and Bloc should consider a "progressive alliance" against the Tories. Since when did it become "progressive" to advocate the break-up of Canada? In May 2005, when it looked as if both the Tories and the Bloc would vote to bring down the Martin government, the Libs howled about the Tories being "in bed with the separatists," even though both parties were merely voting out a corrupt, incompetent government for their own reasons. It was a coincidence, not a conspiracy.
But now it looks as if May may have tipped the hand of Liberal MP and candidate co-ordinator Gerard Kennedy and others working for Dion -- stop the Tories at any cost, even if that means doing a deal with the separatists, directly or indirectly.
Even if the Libs themselves are not directly involved in plotting a coalition with the Bloc, someone they are making a deal with (May) is okay with the idea. Imagine if the Tories were making a deal with such a person. Imagine the Liberal and TorStarGlobeCBCCTV howling then.
(The good news is the Bloc are probably smart enough not to make common cause with the Liberals.)
-- The Liberals used to label as "regional" any party that failed to run a candidate in every riding across the country. I appreciate that the Liberals are choosing not to run a candidate in only one of 308 ridings, but still they used to make such a fuss about the need to run one in all of them.
-- Then there is Kevin Potvin, the Green candidate in Vancouver Kingsway who cheered when he saw the World Trade Centre come down on Sept. 11, 2001. He wrote an editorial in the little neighbourhood newspaper he founded saying that when he saw the first tower collapse, he thought "Yeah!" and when the second went down he said "Beautiful!" to himself, despite the loss of life inside. Why? Because the attacks were a blow "against unbridled corporatism and militarism."
Now Potvin is refusing to back down from his ghoulish, socialist, anti-American views. And at least so far, his party leader, May, is taking no action to repeal his candidacy or expel him from the party.
Both Potvin and May are within their rights to do as they are doing, but are the Liberals wise to do a deal with a party that contains such extremists? Shouldn't the Libs be tarred a bit with the Potvin brush, too?
http://communities.canada.com/nationalpost/blogs/gunter/archive/2007/04/13/the-great-dion-may-coalition.aspx
I too think it's too clever by half. Dion's tacked so far left we can barely see his silhouette on the horizon and making coalition type deals with the Greens isn't going to change that perception. Both parties will take a hit on this, the only question that I haven't sorted out is which party takes the biggest hit.
ReplyDeleteOooo my! Lorne Gunter of the National Post doesn't like something the liberal party is doing! How very unusual! That'll pack serious weight with non-wingnuts.
ReplyDeleteMy thumb got stuck in my bum while I was pulling out the turds I posted here earlier.
ReplyDeleteHey, dion's a dud...can you pull it out for me?
"This dramatic deal shocked many Liberals when it was leaked Thursday night, and many party members are shaking their heads, calling it "goofy," "dumb" and "crazy."
ReplyDeleteSaid an MP, who asked not to be identified for fear of repercussions: "I think he's [Mr. Dion] a big albatross around the party's neck. . . . This type of deal-making is very bad for democracy. It's the slippery slope."
Said another veteran Grit: "In Monty Python lexicon -- we are the silly party."
The criticism from senior Liberals also focuses on what this deal says to the grassroots: that the Liberal Party is not a national party any more; that Liberals think they can't win a riding, that they don't care about the local Liberals in Central Nova and that they need the help of other parties to defeat Mr. Harper and the Conservatives. "
My, what class acts have written in response here. Obviously, they are really bothered and put it so nicely eh?
ReplyDeleteIt takes a real childish attitude to be so crudely desciptive and immature name calling at its worst. Boy the CPC supporters show their low level intellect at every turn.
Ah, CPC's why all the anger - if you think its so stupid you shouldn't even be bothered by it. You're giving yourselves away. If it can't hurt you why are you crying and name calling????
as the raving lunatics made quite clear, along with monte's frantic press conference, the connies 'really' don't like this move. when they get their panties all twisted up like that, you know the libs have had a good day.
ReplyDeleteSo how long until MacKay says something offensive?
ReplyDeleteBoy, Dijon sure knows how to protect democracy, doesn't he? I sure want him as MY leader.
ReplyDelete