Monday, July 16, 2007

Earth to Greens

If Gary Lunn, Con cabinet Minister of Natural Resources and fan of nukes in the tarsands, off-shore oil drilling, and a resumption of oil supertanker traffic in BC's inside passage, retains his Saanich-Gulf Islands seat in the next election, he will have Green Party candidate Andrew Lewis and the 17 greens who voted for Lewis' nomination to thank for it.

Last week, six Green Party activists urged members not to run a candidate in the riding because Saanich-Gulf Islands already boasts two stronger environmental candidates from the NDP and Libs. Former Green now Lib Briony Penn is a long time environmental activist and founding member of The Land Conservancy, while former Green now NDP Julian West, also an environmental activist, is a charter member of Fair Vote Canada. This extraordinary request not to run against them, explained the six, was necessary to prevent the three-way vote-split which has handed Lunn the riding in the last four elections.

However at Saturday's nomination meeting held at a private home on a few days' notice without being posted on either the local or national Green Party websites, seventeen Greens acclaimed Lewis in an uncontested nomination.

Green Party member Bryce Kendrick : "I thought on the one hand, I'd love to see Garry Lunn thrown out, but on the other hand I feel that as a Green party member I have a commitment to the party."

Dear Bryce : See Red Tory

If the Green Party does not give priority to the environment over party politics, then what on earth is it good for?
When dippers are urged to vote Liberal in every election to keep out the dreaded Cons, they point to Liberal support for deep integration, corporate cronyism, and a crap record on the environment as the principles which prevent them from doing so. What are you going to point at?

10 comments:

Celeste said...

Are you suggesting that Green Party members in the EDA were NOT directly notified of the nomination meeting via a mailing (either email and/or paper) as is usually the case? Somehow, I doubt that.

Your premise is a crock. That riding's fate was sealed as soon as the Libs and Dems nominated their respective candidates. Either one of them could have declined to run a candidate for the sake of the planet and most definitely whupped Lunn's ass but no, they didn't. Somehow they'd rather gamble, and try to bully the environmental party into bowing out of the race, which would have been a guarantee of NOTHING.

Good on Andrew Lewis and the Greens of SGI for staying the course.

Deanna said...

Sorry Allison, this time you're wrong.

The only people to blame if Gary Lunn gets re-elected again are the people who vote for Gary Lunn.

The Greens have the right to representation by their own party, just like the NDP do. And I know you're not pulling a Cherniak and saying that the NDP should give up the ghost.

Anonymous said...

HaHaHaHaHaHaHa
Lunn wins again Suck on it you lefties

Jan said...

Fuck off, anonymous.

The real enemy here aside from Lunn is the first-past-the-post system but that's what we got.
No one disputes the right of the Greens to run a candidate, merely the wisdom of doing so, and I say this as a sometime green supporter.

Celeste, the Green charter calls for a 30 day notice of nominations on the Green Party website so a private 3 day notice in this case does seem a bit rushed, don't you think?

Tim said...

2006 Election results :
Lunn - 37.2%
NDP - 26.5%
Libs - 26.1%
Lewis - 9.9%

With both the NDP and Libs running, one of them would have had a clear shot at beating Lunn.
This could still happen if either of them agree to pull their funding fire but with the entry of the Greens it does seem like Lunn's victory is inevitable now.

Q said...

Sort of like the left blaming Nader for helping Bush win?
You should vote principle over practical since lack of honesty is at the heart of political problems.

Alison said...

Celeste, Deanna, Q :
Aren't you guys tired of principled losing yet?

At various times I've strenuously made the objections you point to here too - Ross K and I argued this one for weeks and he would be pretty amused at my changing sides here - but Lunn is an exceptional threat requiring extraordinary measures. The Greens were merely the most recent ones not to recognize that the environment is more important than they are.

So no, it isn't fair of me to expect the Greens to fall on their 9% sword when no one else is falling on theirs.
And yes, it is just like the Lib/Con partisan arguments usually made against the legitimacy of Nader and the NDP.

Those are both excellent points and they get us Gary Lunn. While I commend you for your principles, I'm not sure how much more of these principles the environment can stand in a first-past-the-post system in which people consistently vote against a habitable earth and their own interests.

Q said...

Hmmm.... if you went back in time would you shoot Hitler if you had the chance..probably yes and his cat too. What if he was an infant in his crib, would you strangle him in front of his mom? Probably not?
I admit being an atheist, my moral compass is up my ass...ouch...but the best way to resolve these issues is to find another way and aren't the cons slowly eliminating themselves from electability anyway?

Alison said...

But, Q, I'm not advocating shooting Lunn, am I? Organizing against someone's election by throwing support behind their strongest opponent is not a slippery slope to murder.

But given that you've brought up Hitler here, he was democratically elected too.

"the best way to resolve these issues is to find another way

Exactly. So if you could go back in time, would you advise his opponents to put aside their differences long enough to make sure he wasn't elected? Or would you think it more important to protect their right to run against each other?

"aren't the cons slowly eliminating themselves from electability anyway?

No, Q, they aren't. Especially if you also include all the cons in the Liberal Party.

Q said...

Yes, shooting opponents is for cowards like Bush.
I agree it is a practical idea they have, one not beneith the ethics of the other parties?

And...the bigger problem may be that for the urgency of change needed, it's not going to happen thru political parties locally and globally fast enough anyway.

It's the public's 'fed up move to action' that will move things faster regardless of who's elected.

Didn't an entire city in China spontaneously shut down and protest over pollution last year?

Blog Archive