How should the GPC vote?
If the GPC were one of the opposition parties how should we vote this Friday on the EI measures proposed by the Conservatives? To make the question more relevant, let’s assume that opposing the measures would trigger an election.
Should we be like the Liberals who are as of recently promising to vote against the Government at every opportunity? Should we be like the NPD, proud of their record of voting against the Government 79 times in a row but beginning to have second thoughts when their vote could actually have had a real bearing on the outcome? Would we be like the Bloc who said today that they’ll vote on an issue by issue basis and will support the Government this time around?
Personally I would be tempted to go the Bloc "issue by issue" route on Friday. Canadians don’t want an election so we’d be on the right side of the "make parliament work" issue (at least until a more substantive issue came up). We could even qualify our support by pointing out what we might do differently on EI reform if we were in charge. And, let’s not forget our too close association with the “Anything But Conservative” (ABC) movement and support for the Liberal / NDP coalition during the last election and its aftermath. Siding with Conservatives and Bloc on EI measures this Friday would be a rare opportunity to distance and distinguish ourselves from Liberals and NDP.
I’m certainly open to persuasion on Friday’s vote. But, I doubt I could be convinced that signaling whether we intend to support or oppose the Government before we’ve seen the particular issue, like the Liberals have now done and the NDP has been doing, is the right thing. That sounds like the very definition of partisan politics to me. And, I’m positive we can do more to carve out our own unique identity as opposed to defining it by our opposition to others.
Should we support or oppose the Government this Friday if elections depended on it? Yes or no.
- Ard Van Leeuwen's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Recent Comments
- Rick Mitchell |
- Anne Marie Benoit |
- Frances Thauberger |
- Paul Maillet |
- Steve May |
- 1 of 2222
- ››
Comments
unfair again to NDP
It's not clear you meant it this way, but the way some GPC-ers have a penchant for belittling the party that should in important ways be a model, at least a historical one, for a dissenting party like GPC, I suspect this is yet another gratuitous dig at them. Of course election calculus must enter into it, but the crudest of all, apart from the sometimes even vicious Cons. behaviour, has been Liberals' lack of election-preparedness which saw them abstain umpteen times. NDP might have voted nay those 79 times regardless of where the other parties were at. And their own calculus about election-readiness would have entered into it, but not so crudely as Liberals'. NDP-bashing has proved importantly counterproductive for GPC, insofar as some co-operation just might have ensued, however small. With much of this electoral calculus in our context justifiable, it should enter into GPC theoretical figuring as well. There is always abstention available, although of course even that can serve to effectively topple a government. Best of all in our current context, with most Greens diametrically opposed or going stony silent when the topic is pressed, would be selective & careful cross-party electoral co-operation, which could bring about toppling the dreadful crew in charge now, as well as possibly keep Liberals a bit more honest, but most important GPC could acquire clout as a bloc (note spelling) of its own, able to sway a few ridings one way or another even while seatless. A rational approach unlikely to be considered, especially for GPC-ers being too disparate a grouping, as well as too many hanging on here it seems for enjoying the participation in electoral activity, only a bad thing if it detracts from the dissent Greens owe it to the public to present.
Yes, a dig with a different purpose
Yes, there's a bit of a dig at NDP that's probably better understood when looking at my motivation. In my opinion we are too much seen to be part and parcel with the 'left wing opposition parties'. Everyone already knows in spades that we aren't Conservatives. How do we effectively message that we are just as different from Liberals and NDP?
You raised a lot of ingredients that need to go into making the decision, including things like election preparedness on which Conservatives probably have the upper hand. But, at the end of the day, all considerations thrown into the balance and all qualifications aside, would/should we support or topple the Government if we were in a position to do so this Friday?
I don't like to speculate on hypothetical questions but in this case I think a little discussion and introspection on a yes or no, support or oppose question might shed some light on what kind of party we are or are trying to be.
Ard Van Leeuwen (Dufferin-Caledon, ON)
The views I express on this blog are purely my own and should not be construed to represent the official position of the Green Party of Canada.
Learning from NDP mistakes
I don't think Ard's comment was belittling the NDP. He was simply pointing out a flaw in their approach. Their "79 votes against" clearly were made in a way that didn't threaten their own survival (by triggering an election) so have less symbolic value than they claimed. We can see this now as they change tack suddenly when following their "principle" could reduce their seat count. When the Liberals didn't want an election and could be relied upon to prevent one, it was safe to say "No No No" but now that the Liberals DO want an election (and the NDP don't), the situation changes, leaving Jack to read a conciliatory position from a script and not take questions.
I think the best thing we can learn from the NDP on this is not to repeat their mistake. Is it possible that they opposed every one of the 79 measures? More likely some of them are things that would have been acceptable to their supporters (or potential supporters) but they voted against them - sight unseen, in many cases - regardless. That makes their voting record almost meaningless as an indicator of their support for (or opposition to) specific policy directions.
Green MPs in a minority situation should vote on each bill based on the merits of that specific bill. To vote against a measure we support because we don't like the government introducing it would be playing partisan games like the NDP did, and would lead to a confusing vote record.
On the ways-and-means, I would vote "yes". The reno tax credit needs to be confirmed, as many people are counting on it. Although it isn't restricted to "green" renos (those that improve energy efficiency), sadly, it probably does have a net positive effect in improving the value of our housing stock. If you renovate instead of moving it's usually a greener choice, and I know many people are "stacking" this credit with other green tax credits like ecoENERGY grants or solar panel installations.
(I don't know whether or not Colombian free trade will be included in that bill, so for now I'll ignore that issue. I wonder how the good old "conscience" of parliament will vote on that?)
On the EI reforms, I would also vote yes, especially in order to get it to committee for further multi-partisan discussion and hopefully improvement. (I'm already quoted in a press release saying essentially that).
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins, Barrie ON - although I'm on Cabinet (Nat'l Rev. and Ecol. Fiscal Reform), views here are my own and may not reflect official GPC positions. Please visit www.ErichtheGreen.ca
Canada-Colombia free trade agreement
I read that the Conservatives arranged things such that if a party supports them on Friday they are voting in support of the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement? If so, we should vote against.
Col[o]mbia
That is the way of the Cons., where Parliament is more akin to snooker than co-operative representation.
Re: Colombia
I wouldn't want to be the Green whip!!!
Jim Harris once told me that an idea I had was impractical, because it would take broad co-operation amongst Greens. Securing said co-operation would be like herding cats. Could you imagine trying to 'force' Green MP's to toe the Party line, and vote according to your' strategic analysis, rather than their own conscience?
I think that it's a shame that our Parliament has come to the point where backbenchers have zero choice and influence. It would be truly refreshing if the Green parliamentary caucus joined open and free debate in the house? Imagine if there were only a three line whip for budget votes and the like?
I believe that the Greens should vote every measure based upon it's merits, and according to the principles of the GPC. No more, and no less.
How should our members vote?
The assumption in your question is leading. The answer is actually very simple. If we want to distinguish ourselves from the other parties, all we have to do is do what the Green Party members would do. If we have policy, we adhere to it. If we have a promise in our platform we adhere to it. In the absence of these, we look to our principles. And finally, if we are still unsure, we talk to the members in our riding and apply the principle of Participatory Democracy.
We don't have to game the system, we just have to stick to our principles.
Rob Brooks, Hull-Aylmer
You're a member, how would you vote?
I'm not looking to game the system (I wouldn't know where to start). I'm basically just asking a yes / no question on whether we should topple the government on Friday were we in a position to do so.
How would we apply our members wishes, policies, platform and/or principles in order to answer that single concrete yes or no question? How would you? Apparently it's not that simple because I can't seem to buy a yes or no answer anywhere.
Maybe that's a good sign. It's not recommended that politicians answer hypothetical questions.
Ard Van Leeuwen (Dufferin-Caledon, ON)
The views I express on this blog are purely my own and should not be construed to represent the official position of the Green Party of Canada.
I'd rerfer to our expert to help me
We have a Shadow Cabinet person who would be able to help me navigate our policies and platform under this area - John Fryer. I don't claim or tryt to be a policy expert so I would seek the guidance from persons in our party that are.
Rob Brooks, Hull-Aylmer
Another "not yes or no" answer, but...
Ard, I'll tell you what: the question you've posed has really intrigued me since I read it last night. I've been trying to find out what, exactly, is going before the House on Friday. We know that it's a "ways and means" motion or bill or something or other which contains (in part) mechnanisms to implement the home renovation tax credit, but it sounds like that there are other items stashed in it as well. It sounds like some sort of omnibus motion (legislation?). For example, I heard that there would be something in the motion (bill?) about support for Canada legalizing free trade with Colombia.
I've been looking for something official which indicates exactly what is contained within this bill (motion?), but not having a lot of time, and experiencing no success, I'm now asking others out here in GPC blog-land for assistance. If someone could provide a link to what is being voted on, or even a summary (actually a summary would be preferred), after reviewing what exactly is to be voted on, I'll offer my opinion on Ard's question.
Links, anyone?
"Sudbury" Steve May
Not a one issue vote
If I understand it this vote is going to be on a package of measures not just the EI issue. Harper wants this to be a one issue vote in the public eye much as last December he tried to make the vote only about campagn financing. As I've said before Harper is a master manipulator so let's not fall into the trap of talking about Fridays vote as just about EI. It plays right into the Conservative PR machine. I would want to see all the things being voted on first and then just the whole package. As stated above the shadow cabinet would probably be best to judge whether they fall into GPC policies and philosophy best.
Also I would say that this is a motion not a bill. remember that a motion was passed in the house to pursue Kyoto and we all know how much was done on that.
This whole thing reeks of typical Harper/Conservative gamesmanship of important issues for political gain.
These opinions are solely my own.
lots of jobs in an election
Lets waste $300 million more for a stimulus package and hire 40,000 people again for the election.
I would pull the plug and knew layton never would as he peaked a long time ago...and is going DOWN !!stay tuned !
Like these guys are doing anything to help...come on..at least during an election...people actually have hope the sheep will awaken.
No one remembers the prorogued rogues
The CMHC hidden waste of 75 billion....the fixed election date LAW!!
You are getting sleepy ...you are getting sleepy .....zzzzzzz
Cheers