You can't argue with the facts?

Last week, The Times Colonist's Paul Willcocks pointed out, "If Green voters had shifted to the Liberals or New Democrats, the outcome (of the election) could have been much different - from an NDP majority government to a more dominant Liberal one. There were 18 races close enough that Green votes, redistributed, could have changed the outcome." But the party's provincial leader Jane Sterk took umbrage with that analysis.

"And there were nine Liberal races where the same would be said to be true. I think the assumption that our vote goes to the NDP is offensive. And I want it off the table because we are not the NDP," responded Ms. Sterk on Public Eye Radio. "I've just handed you a document that shows you on key issues the major differences between the Green Party and the other two parties. And it is not any longer a political reality that the Green Party is even close to the NDP. We have profoundly differently policies."

So is the Green leader "p.o.'ed" with Mr. Willcocks, who also stated, "The party seems, if not pointless, at least an ineffective way to bring change.?

"Of course I was," Ms. Sterk replied. "I'm p.o'ed at every column that - you know the pundits say, the political elite are all saying, "The Green Party should just disappear. I should go and run for one of the parties. I mean, give me a break."

1 Comment

The problem is it's still esentially a single-issue party, no different than the Marijuana Party or the Work Less Party, notwithstanding the efforts to provide policy covering other areas (some of which is pretty interesting and some of which is utterly naive).

We can all go out as they've done and choose to stand apart from the hoi polloi by forming a special interest party to push our particular advocacy interests. As others have noted, the Education Party, the Health Care Party, the Housing Party, the Poverty Party could all potentially attract as many or more voters as the Greens, and we could all come up with a full policy platform to surround our key interests to claim mainstream legitimacy.

Then what? Apart from the reality that a choice of 15 competing candidates doesn't work with First Past the Post (which for better or for worse, BC voters have opted to stick with), you would at best end up with a bunch of parties in Victoria who then have to fight out the compromises in a way that forces each to renege publicly on their platform commitments to respective constituents if they are to avoid a complete governance stalemate?

The issues are all important and the compromises need to be worked out one way or the other. When you actually think it all the way through, it seems pretty obvious that Greens need to start working on advancing their good ideas within the two main parties. The recent election showed that the Green NGOs were far more influential in the end than the Green party itself. They'll never get things 100% their way but that's life - neither do those of us trying to resolve equally important challenges in other policy areas like children's issues, homelessness or sustainable economic development.

If Sterk isn't comfortable with the NDP, she can work with the Liberals. The Greens need to get over their disdain about working with imperfect people because at the end of the day, that's all there is.

Leave a comment

Copyright © 2004 - Public Eye Mediaworks. Reproductions of any portion of this Website are permitted only with the expressed permission of Public Eye Mediaworks.
Canadian Web Hosting graciously provided by dotcanuck Web Services. Layout and graphics courtesy of Art Department Design.