Monday, August 22, 2016
May Stays
Elizabeth May has chosen to remain leader of the Green Party. It's not entirely clear what that means to the party or Green members.
She said that while many well-intentioned groups (i.e. the United Church of Canada and the Quakers) have supported the BDS movement, it's no place for a "serious" federal political party. Ouch, wince.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I'm glad she is staying but I'm a bit puzzled about her confused stance on BDS.
Both the UCC and Quakers support "parts" of BDS. They do not whole-heartedly subscribe to it. If Ms. May thinks they do she is slipping in her homework.
One has to wonder what Dizzy Lizzy has actually brought to the table. The GPC is a strange mixture of anti-capitalism and market fundamentalism.
Now compare May to Dr. Jill Stein. I can listen to Stein speak for hours. Can't get enough. But May is not inspiring. Her message is not consistent. Her vision is not compelling.
Just saw a video where Stein said the US war on terrorism has been an abject failure that has consistently created more terrorists over time: right from America's and Saudi Arabia's support of the Mujahideen against the Soviets. Instead of bombing people, she wants an arms embargo to starve terrorism.
Now think of how 'extremist' this point of view is in America, even though it's the truth. Yet Dizzy Lizzy thinks the BDS movement is too extremist for her tastes. I would say she's in the wrong party. She should run for the Liberals. They would probably make her environmental minister. Think of how much that would advance her career!
Funny how the Liberals and Cons are different sides of the same establishment coin: bad cop/worse cop. Yet Dippers and Greens can't get their act together enough to even criticize them for all their failed neoliberal policies they inflicted on Canadians over the past 3 decades -- and are still expanding on.
Looks like they rely too much on internal polling when they should just come right out with the truth, like Jill Stein. Take leadership instead of following polls like the establishment parties. What do these losers have to lose?
Whilst I initially was puzzled by Mays stance on this listening to her reasoning I found it reasonable, I just wish she had not made it a such a dramatic "me or the party' issue. Whilst I support the 'consensus' and member approved bottom up decision making in the party I do wonder how that would work for a party in power.... dont think we will find out any time soon!
I, too, found her explanation confusing, muddled and, on the whole, inadequate.The business about staying because she needed the "party leader" clout to be recognized on the electoral reform issue sounds as though she's using it because, without the Greens, she would be just another MP, a nobody. That sounded a bit exploitive to me. I wonder if she's not in the throes of burn out.
"a "serious" federal political party. "
you found this puzzling?
Come on... disappointing perhaps, (after your lemming like devotion in the last election) but 'puzzling'.
Post a Comment