But I think that kind of thinking gets it backwards. The Green Party should continue to exist as an entity that attracts between five and ten per cent of the vote nationally so the big progressive parties have to fight for those votes, to offer them something. So if rogue NDPer Bruce Hyer goes GPC and doubles their numbers in HOC, and presumably provides a funding boost as well, then this is for the greater good.
That is all.
PS. If he goes LPC, then that's OK too.
2 comments:
It's possible to steal a few points from the GPC with the right policy announcements.
I'm still concerned that the GPC never recovered from the Jim Harris era. So many resources were dedicated to creating EDAs and running candidates to capitalize on the per vote subsidy, that the work on cultivating the grassroots suffered, and internal conflict arose from it.
The Crookes lawsuits came out of that conflict.
With the subsidy ending, they need to concentrate on winnable ridings. Better 250,000 concentrated votes than a million spread thin.
A collapsed GPC would largely divide between the NDP and LPC. I doubt it would matter much to either party, and there would be no change in policy.
The GPC is a conscience party. That serves a purpose. It is best left intact.
Elizabeth May, in a recent e-mail wrote:
"When I first decided to run for leadership in the Green Party, my primary motivation was to stop Stephen Harper gaining a majority government. I thought I could prevent his chances of a majority by being in the leaders’ debate, working to keep a focus on issues. I wanted to blunt what I saw then - and still do today - as the informal alliance between Conservatives and the NDP to destroy the Liberal Party – thus keeping Harper in power."
She speaks directly about what she thinks of the NDP.
As for my former party, the LPC, on environmental policy they're awfully close to spineless.
Post a Comment